Sitting of 10 March 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Abertillery, in the room of Llywelyn Williams, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Short.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROADS

    Intersections (Parking Restrictions)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for the compulsory marking of all road intersections, with a view to preventing parking on areas so restricted.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The need for such markings is being considered by a working party set up to examine the law of obstruction on roads. Its report is expected shortly, and we will consider this proposal in the light of it.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the marking of a limited number of intersections is not likely to discipline the whole motoring population into refraining from parking at intersections, the essential thing being to have every intersection so marked?
    Mr. Swingler: We recognise that the present position is not satisfactory and not consistent but, having a working party which includes representatives of the police, the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport, we feel that we should await the report, which is expected very soon and on which we shall take action.

    East Anglia (East-West Route)
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for
    384
    the construction of a dual-carriage highway, following the general route of the A.45, east to west across East Anglia.
    Mr. Swingler: Our long-term plan is to improve the existing road generally to dual carriageway standards with bypasses as required.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that very little is to be gained by tackling this problem with a series of small bypasses to assist various towns along the way? What is really needed is for the Minister to think big in this matter so that we have a highway which will connect the industrial Midlands with the East Coast ports.
    Mr. Swingler: Our job is to think in terms of traffic volumes on the roads and the requirements in terms of modern transport needs. These roads are being brought up to standard in accordance with the evidence of traffic volume that we have. As the hon. Member knows, a considerable number of schemes are now in hand.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the congestion in the Port of London, he will improve the roads leading to Harwich, Ipswich, Yarmouth and King's Lynn, thus providing better facilities for Midlands industrialists to export and import to and from Western Europe.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the congestion in the Port of London, he will improve the road leading to Harwich to help Midlands industrialists and others who export to and import from Western Europe.
    Mr. Swingler: Improvements of these roads are being carried out as funds permit at places where the greatest benefit will be obtained.
    Mr. Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we have, in recent months, seen some of the difficulties that arise as a result of the funnelling of so much of our export trade from the industrial Midlands through the Port of London? Would not the hon. Gentleman consider that a great deal might be gained by diverting some of this traffic, particularly that which goes to the Common Market countries and into the valley of the Rhine? Would it not be an improvement if some of this traffic were encouraged to go on an east-west route through

    385
    the developing ports of Ipswich and Harwich, which would ease congestion in London and make for much more effective shipment of our exports to the European nations?
    Mr. Swingler: We want to see a better distribution of traffic between the ports and also to see not only the roads but the railways better used, especially in East Anglia, to this effect.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the roads leading to Harwich are becoming a vital artery for our exports and that motor traffic on them, in terms of export value, has increased from £50 million to £300 million in the last few years? A lot of this traffic consists of caravans and car transporters, and we shall have a fatal accident very soon in our narrow country lanes along which this transport has to go. Will the hon. Gentleman's Department do something about it?
    Mr. Swingler: Something is being done about it. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that roadworks are in hand on the A.604 and the A.113 in order to improve them in relation to the volume of traffic.
    Mr. Powell: In looking at the schemes to which these Questions refer, would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that competition between ports for traffic can be, as the Rochdale Committee pointed out, not only a safeguard to the consumer but an important stimulus to efficiency?
    Mr. Swingler: As I have said, we are in favour of a better distribution of traffic between ports and, therefore, in considering transport requirements, we are doing all we can to improve access to these ports.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Have these roads been in existence in the last 13 years?
    Mr. Fell: Would the hon. Gentleman hold an inquiry—we could do with a few more—into the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)?
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. We are getting on with the job of improving the roads.
    Mr. Norwoodasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for the construction of a central England highway connecting the Midlands with the ports of King's Lynn and Yarmouth.
    Mr. Swingler: Our plan is to improve the existing trunk route as necessary, and as the many other demands upon the road programme will permit.
    Mr. Norwood: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that although earlier today the claims of the more southern routes have been stressed, if a road of this kind is contemplated it would be better to build it on the north route to Lynn because this would help not only Norfolk but Suffolk?
    Mr. Swingler: I should not like my hon. Friend to think that there was any particular proposal for the southern route. There are as many as 10 improvement schemes in hand or programmed on the A.47.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a policy which is based on the existing traffic will not help anyone and that his task as Minister is to contemplate the future and to recognise the growth which is taking place in the Eastern Counties? It is simply not good enough to fob us off with stories about what the existing traffic is.
    Mr. Swingler: Our problem is that we have to deal with the existing inheritance and improve upon it.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: While bearing in mind the claims of the Eastern Counties and the North-East, will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that other parts of England need the expenditure of money which has already been authorised.
    Mr. Speaker: There may be perils if each of these quasi-local questions becomes an excuse for travelling round the map.

    A.1 Road—Hull (Trunk Road)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the new trunk road between the A.1 and Hull.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has made a decision regarding the construction of a trunk road between Hull and the Great North Road; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Swingler: I would refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the

    387
    reply my right hon. Friend gave to them and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. Solomons) on 3rd March.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the proposed improvement in the east-west communications and the Humber Bridge project are not two alternatives but are complementary one to the other and that the whole development of the area depends on better communications, both east and west and across the Humber Bridge north and south?
    Mr. Swingler: We appreciate that these matters are inter-related and that is why my right hon. Friend is shortly to receive representatives of the Humber Bridge Board in order to discuss their proposals with them.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that Hull has become the third port in the United Kingdom and the biggest fishing port in the world despite having these bad communications? Will he help to overcome what the citizens of Hull regard as comparative isolation?
    Mr. Swingler: I congratulate Hull on its progress. I am not aware of its comparative isolation. Quite a number of road schemes are in hand in this part of the world. But we recognise the major issue which is raised and not only is my right hon. Friend receiving representatives of the Humber Bridge Board very shortly, but my noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is visiting Hull to get views on the spot early next month.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman look at all the Humber ports as a whole, both north and south of the river, and make a decision in view of the needs of both north and south banks?
    Mr. Swingler: Of course.

    A.63 Road (Elloughton Bypass)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport when a decision will be made about the line of the A.63 bypassing Elloughton village.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): My predecessor proposed to proceed with a draft Order under Section 7 of the Highways Act, 1959, based
    388
    on the southernmost of the alternative routes which had been under consideration. In the event, the East Riding County Council, the local planning authority, opposed this route. A different route between it and the northernmost of the alternatives is now being further investigated. I will publish a draft Order as soon as possible.
    Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that of the three alternative routes being discussed, the northern route would have the grave objection that it would pin the people living in the village of Brantingham against the hills? As he has now rejected the southern route, will he give careful consideration to the compromise central route?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

    Buchanan Report
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress which is being made in implementing the recommendations of the Buchanan Report; and what specific action he proposes to take to improve matters.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Transport what proposals in the Buchanan Report he proposes to implement.
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in his plans to implement the Buchanan Report.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I are jointly promoting comprehensive land use/transport surveys in the conurbations and some other towns; case studies on urban problems; research at universities; and a review of the planning and grant systems.
    The latest bulletin to local authorities, giving advice on town centre parking, was issued last week. A further bulletin will be issued later this year giving guidance on applying the Buchanan principles in the light of the resources likely to be available.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a belief is growing up that the Buchanan Report will

    389
    be corrupted by the usual Anglo-Saxon fault of all talk and no action? Will he adopt the recommendation in the Buchanan Report requiring each town development plan to have a transportation development plan attached to it?
    Mr. Fraser: As I have said, the latest bulletin gives some advice and a further bulletin will be issued later this year which will give the kind of advice which the hon. Member has in mind. I do not want to be guilty of shelving the Buchanan Report. Representations have been made to me which allege, rightly or wrongly, that my predecessor had done so, but I can assure the House that the Report is very much before me.
    Mr. Bence: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will apply the natural genius and energy of the Scots to overcoming the negligence and apathy of the Anglo-Saxons in the last 13 years in road construction and town development?
    Mr. Fraser: I can only promise to do my best.
    Mr. Strauss: Will my right hon. Friend recall that in his Report Professor Buchanan says that many of the development plans which he examined showed that road proposals were quite inadequate for future requirements? Will he and his right hon. Friend see that these plans are revised and altered where necessary?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will have observed that in recent times Professor Buchanan himself has accepted invitations to go to a good many of these towns to give them some advice on the modifications required in their plans. We now have comprehensive surveys going on in a number of places, as I said. They are London, Manchester, Birmingham, Merseyside, Tees-side, Cardiff, Leicester, Plymouth and Reading. Case studies are being made in other towns and we hope to get a comprehensive picture which will be of great help in the preparation of a further bulletin to be sent to all towns.
    Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage the introduction of proposals for the limitation of the volume of traffic in town centres?
    Mr. Fraser: This is essential. If traffic generally is to move, some limitation will have to be imposed on the amount of transport which can be allowed to stop, and remain stationary, in towns. In applying the principles laid down by Buchanan there is much to be done in this direction, to enable the main arteries to continue to be used as such and to seek to provide environmental areas which will be relatively free of traffic not destined for those areas.

    Road Programme
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that the present road programme will be maintained, despite any increase which may take place in the cost of road building due to the fall in the value of money and the imposition of new taxation.
    Mr. Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that the present road programme, as previously announced, will not be cut.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that the road programme laid down by the previous administration will be maintained.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that economic considerations will not cause delay in the implementation of the road programme initiated by his predecessor in office.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: The Government are proceeding with the road programme as planned. As in the past, the trend of road construction prices will be taken into account in annual reviews of the programme.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As we now know that the value of the £ has fallen to 19s. 8d. since October and, at that rate, will be 7 per cent. less in value by the autumn, may I ask whether in the forthcoming White Paper on public expenditure the right hon. Gentleman will press for an addition of 7 per cent. as well as the rolling programme which was outlined in the past?
    Mr. Fraser: My concern when the White Paper is being prepared is to

    391
    ensure that the road programme is not diminished.
    Mr. Bossom: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the road programme will not be cut in real terms? Is this why the right hon. Gentleman for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was left out of the Government, because when he was shadow Minister of Transport he always strongly advocated that the road programme should be greatly increased by the present Government?
    Mr. Fraser: I am not sure about this. I have been looking at the records and I think that a great deal of nonsense has been talked about rash promises of greatly increasing the road programme. Since the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) twice asserted during Question Time last Wednesday that we had made rash promises about the road programme, which I resisted at the time, I have consulted our election manifesto and discovered that we did not say anything about an increase in the programme.
    Mr. Powell: Now that we have it clear that the Labour Party did not think that it could envisage any improvement in the road programme and road building record of the Conservative Party, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that his pledge to me last week that he would maintain his predecessor's programme was in real terms?
    Mr. Fraser: The programme was worked out in real terms, taking account of changes in road construction costs from time to time. I have maintained all along that we will adhere to the programme which we inherited, and that will mean doing far better than the previous Administration did.
    Mr. Bossom: May I revert to the previous question and say that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said at a Press conference with me when we came back from Vienna that the programme would be increased?
    Mr. Fraser: The programme which we are carrying through envisages an increase of 14 per cent. year after year. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was right.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that I am informed that in the County of
    392
    Cornwall there are 240 approved schemes in the pipeline which will take at least four years to carry out? Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to increase the road programme so that the backlog can be overtaken?
    Mr. Fraser: That raises another question. The Questions which I have answered are concerned with the existing programme.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend explain why there is so much yet to do if the previous Government did so much in developing a vast road programme?
    Mr. Fraser: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend will have to ask the Opposition that.

    Clearways (Laybys)
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it illegal for vehicles travelling on clearways to make use of laybys situated on the opposite side of the road to that on which the vehicle is travelling.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: No, Sir. Some laybys or similar hardened areas on clearways are provided for the servicing of premises adjacent to the road and need to be accessible from both directions. The alternatives of pulling on to the nearside verge and walking across, or of making U-turns into and out of laybys, might be less safe and more disturbing to other traffic than pulling across the road.
    Mr. Loveys: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while stopping on clearways is not allowed, it is infinitely more dangerous to cross right over the oncoming traffic? Would he encourage the provision of laybys on both sides of clearways wherever practical and the removal of dangerous signs with arrows inviting motorists to cross right over clearways?
    Mr. Fraser: It is desirable that the crossing of clearways should be kept to a minimum. The practice is to place laybys alternately on either side of the road, but inasmuch as they are sometimes provided for the convenience of services nearby it is better, in some instances, to allow vehicles to cross the

    393
    clearway to get to the layby adjacent to the services. But there is a responsibility on the driver to ensure that he does not create a hazard when he negotiates the crossing of the clearway.

    Kenilworth
    Sir J. Hobsonasked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to remove the heavy weight of through traffic from the streets of Kenilworth; and when he estimates that work on a project for this purpose will begin.
    Mr. Swingler: Bypassing seems to offer the best solution. Some investigation of possible routes has been undertaken, but we cannot yet forecast when construction will begin.
    Sir J. Hobson: Will the Minister bear in mind, first, that considerable expansion is going on in Kenilworth, and, secondly, that the University of Warwick is beginning very substantial expansion indeed and that it is urgent that a decision should be taken about by-passing Kenilworth? When will that decision be taken?
    Mr. Swingler: It will be taken very soon. An origin and destination survey has been carried out and the results are now being processed. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are four proposed routes bypassing Kenilworth, all of which involve snags. But, on the basis of the origin and destination survey, we shall very soon come to a conclusion.

    Huddersfield-Oldham Road (Snow)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Minister of Transport on how many days this winter the A.62 between Huddersfield and Oldham has been blocked by snow at Standedge; and what are the corresponding figures for the previous three winters.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: At no time this winter or during the winters of 1961–62 and 1963–64. But during the bad winter of 1962–63 the road was blocked on four occasions by snow.
    Mr. Duffy: Whilst I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask if he is aware that I am informed that this road was blocked just a week
    394
    ago? Is he aware that, even on the four occasions which he has mentioned, the only movement on this route was by rail, yet all the local stations are threatened with closure? Even the route which links Manchester and Leeds via Diggle, is not one of the trans-Pennine routes scheduled for development according to the February Report of the Railways Board. Will my right hon. Friend please bear in mind his Answer to me when he takes a final decision about rail transport in the Saddleworth and Colne Valley urban districts?
    Mr. Fraser: I will certainly take account of what my hon. Friend has said when a proposal to withdraw a railway service comes before me for decision. I am sorry if I am misinformed about the conditions a week ago. My hon. Friend's Question went down before the snowstorm of last weekend and I wondered whether we would have a blockage at that time to report. The result of my inquiry shows, however, that there was no blockage last weekend.
    Mr. Webster: Does not the Minister regret that his hon. Friend was not prevented from getting to his constituency on 12th February and casting aspersions on part of this House?

    M.4 Motorway
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Transport when he will publish the draft proposals for the M.4 Motorway.
    Mr. Peter Emeryasked the Minister of Transport what further action he has taken in order to speed up the decision on the line of the M.4 motorway to be taken through Berkshire.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Transport, when he now expects to announce the route and the date for commencing the construction of the rest of the M.4.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: It is unlikely that construction of the Tormarton-Liddington section could start before 1967 because of the time required for the statutory processes. Apart from this there is nothing that I can usefully add at present to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) on 17th February.
    Mr. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman estimate when that section of the motorway might be completed? When he announces the direction proposals, will he announce a programme of improvements to feeder roads?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot say offhand when the section will be completed. My first concern is to get the line of the M.4 determined and then to get the work out to contract. I am sometimes criticised for allowing these motorway contracts to go out in bits and pieces—not that I have had responsibility for this for very long. As I see it, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport in a matter like this is to get the whole of the line determined as quickly as possible, and this is what I am endeavouring to do.

    Motorways
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Transport how many contracts have been placed for new motorway construction since 15th October, 1964.
    Mr. Swingler: Four. I am circulating particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    CONTRACTS FOR NEW MOTORWAY CONSTRUCTION PLACED SINCE 15TH OCTOBER, 1964

    Item No.

    Contract (1)

    Date let (2)

    Contractor (3)

    Tender Sum (4)

    1

    Durham Motorway: advance earthworks, Ricknall Carrs.

    4th November, 1964

    Dowsett Engineering Construction Ltd.

    £293,527

    2

    Durham Motorway: advance construction of bridges.

    30th November, 1964

    Reed and Mallik Ltd.

    £585,012

    3

    London-Yorkshire Motorway: Contract LY/CP (Nuthall to Pinxton).

    3rd December, 1964

    Geo. Wimpey & Co. Ltd.

    £5,543,595

    4

    Tinsley Viaduct

    5th February, 1965

    Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co. Ltd.

    Around £4,500,000 subject to negotiations

    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Transport if he will give the number of miles of motorways that have been built for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, and the estimated mileage for 1965, 1966, and 1967, respectively.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: 49¼, 95 and 8¼ miles; and 76, 85 and 93¼ miles.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the complete programme of the previous Government was less than that of any Government on the Continent in comparison with population? Does he also realise that experts have
    Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of disquiet and concern in the country, because it is felt that the Government will allow the impetus of our motorway construction programme to grind to a halt? Can the Minister say, for example, whether, in particular, the section of the M.1 between Markfield and the River Trent, which is scheduled for opening in July this year, is up to date?
    Mr. Swingler: I do not know whether these rumours come from the country or from the hon. Member. They have no basis. This is exactly the same number as for the same period last year, but two of these contracts were together worth £10 million and during this time we have invited tenders for six more motorway contracts.
    Mr. Bessell: Do any of the contracts let since 15th October apply to the South-West and, in particular, to the A.38?
    Mr. Swingler: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will give him the particulars.
    said that over a period of 13½ years, slowly but surely, because of the delays to traffic, the cost to this country reached last year a total of £400 million? Will he make certain that the future programme by this Government will be adequate, so that we shall be proud of the Labour Government in this country?
    Mr. Fraser: It is the fact that most other developed countries in Europe have done better in the provision of highways than we have in this country for a number of years, and I do not think that there is any doubt but that we suffer a disadvantage to our economy because of the

    397
    inadequacy of our highway system. Bearing these things in mind, it will be my endeavour to do rather better during my long term of office at this Ministry than any of my predecessors have done.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the mileage of roads in this country compared with a corresponding area in France?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot, but that is another question. The Question that I was asked related to the building of motorways and the great new arteries which have been built in many parts of the world. We had built practically none until a few years ago.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is not the question a little disingenuous, and would not an entirely different picture be presented if, instead of taking the calendar year, the hon. Member for the Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who asked the Question, had taken the financial year? That would have shown that many more than 8½ miles were built in 1964. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how he is going to extend the programme beyond the programme laid down by the late Government when, at an earlier stage, he said that he hoped to do no better than that?
    Mr. Fraser: The trouble with the previous Government was that they laid down a programme but forgot to provide the resources to enable the programme to be carried out.
    Dealing with the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is true that if the financial year were taken it would show a different figure, because in January of this year 32½ miles of motorway were opened. That does not come into the calendar year 1964. If we take the financial year 1964–65, the mileage completed is 52.

    Yellow Box Crossings
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Transport whether the experiment with yellow box crossings has resulted in speeding the flow of traffic in the West End of London.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: Generally the markings have improved conditions and reduced delays, particularly to the side-road traffic. The best results so far are
    398
    at the busier junctions in Oxford Street and Regent Street.
    More experience of the majority of the markings, which were put down as recently as January, is necessary before the value of the experiment can be properly assessed.
    Mr. Costain: Is not this normal procedure under the Highway Code? Could the Minister take more steps to enforce the Highway Code so that this increased flow of traffic might be continued?
    Mr. Fraser: It is my responsibility to draft and publish the Highway Code, not to enforce it.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the Minister think of extending this experiment to certain other parts of the country?
    Mr. Fraser: This experiment was undertaken in London by the Ministry of Transport, as the traffic authority for London. As from 1st April the Greater London Council will become the traffic authority in London. If local authorities elsewhere in the country wish to try this experiment in congested towns, they are free to do so. It would, however, be wrong of me, before we have been able fully to evaluate the success of the experiment in London, to recommend other local authorities to undertake it.

    Evesham Bypass
    Sir P. Agnewasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the light of the report to him by the Worcestershire County Council as to the routeing of the proposed Evesham bypass road, he is now able to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Swingler: The council's surveyor has reported on two possible routes for the bypass but the results of a traffic survey are still awaited. We are not yet able to announce a decision or make a statement about the route.
    Sir P. Agnew: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, if progress was not very rapid during the previous Administration, the much vaunted dynamism of the present Government is not showing itself in dealing with this problem? Can he give a clearer idea as to when he

    399
    expects that a decision will be given by his Ministry, so that the citizens of Evesham can plan their town and be taken out of their present uncertainty?
    Mr. Swingler: An origin and destination survey is now in progress. It is a matter which is extremely complicated. We expect to have the statistical and other results of this survey in the spring. They will then be studied as quickly as possible, and we hope shortly after that to be able to announce the route.
    Mr. Mitchell: I wonder if the Minister could make any statement in respect of Andover?
    Mr. Swingler: Not on this Question.

    Multi-Lane Highways
    Mr. McBrideasked the Minister of Transport the total existing mileage of six, four, and three lane highways in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively; what mileage is under construction; and what is the additional mileage of planned construction estimated to be in use by 1970.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: As the Answer involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McBride: Would my right hon. Friend consider that modern conditions indicate the speedy discontinuing of the construction of highways with the suicidal centre strip? Has he considered in the Welsh connotation that the extent in

    TRUNK ROADS AND MOTORWAYS

    Existing mileage

    Mileage under construction

    Additional mileage of planned construction estimated to be in use by 1970

    6L

    4L

    3L

    6L

    4L

    3L

    6L

    4L

    3L

    England

    …

    …

    204¾

    727¼

    766½*

    178½

    104

    1

    386

    276¼

    —

    Wales

    …

    …

    —

    16½

    48¼*

    —

    27¼

    7½

    —

    37

    7¾

    Scotland

    …

    …

    4¾

    127

    64

    —

    29½

    —

    9½

    57

    —

    Similar information is not available for classified roads.

    * This figure is lower than that printed in the 1963–64 Report "Roads in England and Wales". The reason is that several stretches of road previously regarded as three-lane are now rated only as two-lane.

    Note: The information about roads in Scotland was provided by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Toll Bridges
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Transport how many toll bridges there are in the United Kingdom which were created before 1900.
    mileage terms of these highways is minimal to a degree? Has he further considered the implications to be drawn from the statement of road development to 1984 as shown in map 21, page 94, of the February report of British Rail? Will he agree that construction of these roads in South Wales will help exports flow more speedily from South Wales ports? Is he aware—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—
    Mr. Speaker: I think the Minister had better answer as far as we have got.
    Mr. Fraser: I have already made clear at the Box that I am not very favourably disposed to three-lane highways myself, and very little three-lane mileage is under construction at present. As for highways in Wales to and from the ports, running up to 1984, my hon. Friend will be aware that the programming of the roads in Wales, beyond the programme which we now have in front of us, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Bessell: In considering construction of two-lane highways and planning for the period to 1970, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very urgent needs of the South-West, particularly in view of the latest report of Dr. Beeching?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, I will do so, but may I just remind the hon. Gentleman that the only roads not referred to in this Question are two-lane roads?
    Following is the Answer:
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I understand there are 24 such bridges in England and Wales.
    Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of these is

    401
    in my constituency, that it has been there since the year 1766 and that Governments of all three parties have done nothing about it at all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would he now please consider this question rather more seriously than other Governments have done in the past, and, realising that one of the problems is that compensation has to be paid to the owners, will he, perhaps, consider fixing a term of years by when all these toll bridges should be ended?
    Mr. Fraser: I find it a bit difficult to do what the hon. Gentleman requests. Of these 24 toll bridges three are on trunk roads, and what to do with them is clearly my responsibility, but the toll bridge in his constituency, to which he refers, is, I understand, on a Class I road, and I think the initiative as to what should be done with that one really must come from the highway authority.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only is the toll bridge in the hon. Gentleman's constituency 200 years old but that for 200 years the income from it has been completely tax-free, and that the same applies to the other five toll bridges in the country—that the income has been tax-free for 200 years? Can he say what discussions he has had within the Government to see how they can tackle this problem?
    Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend will not expect me to say what discussions I have had with my right hon. Friends within the Government about this matter, but whether or not the income from these tolls should continue to be exempt from tax is, of course, a matter principally for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that even if the Chancellor in his forthcoming Budget should accede to the pressure being put on him to tax these tolls, that will not help the persons who use the toll bridges, and they are the people I am concerned about?
    Mr. Fraser: I entirely accept that.

    Non-Skid Surfaces
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport to what extent the number of road accidents at specially dangerous points has been reduced in recent years
    402
    by the use of non-skid road surfaces; if he will publish in HANSARD a statistical table illustrating such reduction; and what research is being done to ascertain the most effective of these techniques.
    Mr. Swingler: All approved road surfacing materials are designed to be resistant to skidding. Studies carried out by the Road Research Laboratory at selected dangerous sites show a marked reduction in the number of skidding accidents after resurfacing. I am circulating details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Research is continuously in progress to achieve further improvements in the design of road surfaces.
    Mr. Driberg: Does my hon. Friend accept that the most effective of these surfaces may not necessarily be the cheapest to lay down, but may be cheaper in the long run because it needs less maintenance and repair? Will he reconsider this point, because I do not think that it is entirely accepted by his Ministry, as yet?
    Mr. Swingler: This is one of the difficult and complicated matters which we have to look at both from the economic and technological point of view. The Road Research Laboratory has been tackling this actively in order to give us advice, and we shall certainly take into account the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Popplewell: Will my hon. Friend consider holding an investigation into the causes of accidents, as opposed to merely relying on evidence given in police court proceedings? Will he consider holding investigations into road accidents, in the same way as his inspectors hold inquiries into rail accidents? Does not my hon. Friend think that the time has come when there should be an investigation into road accidents, rather than merely relying on the evidence of the police authorities?
    Mr. Swingler: This further investigation is going on, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a considerable amount of trouble and labour involved in accumulating all the details of the unfortunately numerous accidents which occur. In fact, research is being extended all the time, and we intend to give all the support that we can to the Road Research Laboratory in its studies.
    Mr. William Yates: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to consult his right hon. Friends concerning legislation on this point? After all, the law in respect of railway accidents is different.
    Mr. Swingler: Certainly we shall have consultations about that, but before we can consider any legislation, we must arrive at a technical solution to the problem. Although many experiments have been carried out, we cannot say that we have arrived at any final solution to the technical problems involved.

    RESULTS OF "BEFORE AND AFTER" STUDIES AT 55* SKIDDING ACCIDENT SITES AVERAGE LENGTH OF SITE TREATED—¼ MILE

    —

    Accidents in period before treatment

    Accidents in period after treatment

    Total

    Average number per year per site

    Total

    Average number per year per site

    Accidents involving skidding on wet roads

    …

    723

    6

    130*

    1

    All accidents on wet roads

    …

    1,025

    8

    321

    2

    Period covered

    …

    2years 2 months

    2years 8 months

    * This table includes results for all the sites known to the Laboratory during the period covered by the observations. At eight sites the skidding resistance of the road decreased to a low value again in less than two years after treatment: 68 of the skidding accidents included in the above table which occurred after treatment were at these eight sites.

  RAILWAYS

    Complaints
    Mr. Bessellasked the Minister of Transport if he will publish the number of complaints on every aspect of the service offered by British Railways during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1964; and if he will provide the figures for each region of British Railways.
    Mr. Swingler: Complaints about British Railways services are received by the Railways Board at headquarters, regional and local levels. Some are made to Transport Users Consultative Committees. Correspondence received by my Department on railways management matters and sent on to the Board also includes some complaints, not separately recorded. It is impracticable to compile from all these sources the figures requested.
    Mr. Bessell: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask
    Mr. Manuel: Will my hon. Friend ensure that before any final solution is arrived at there is the closest consultation with the major local authorities concerned in this matter?
    Mr. Swingler: Of course the local highway authorities are very much concerned in this, as are a large number of scientists and researchers, and we hope to make available to the local authorities the results of the technical investigations now being carried out.
    Following are the details:
    him whether he is aware that there is very considerable disquiet about the number of complaints received, particularly by Western Region, about breakdowns in diesel locomotives, passenger goods, particularly small passenger goods traffic, and delays in the passenger service generally? Is any action being taken to correct this?
    Mr. Swingler: These are questions about management and they should be submitted in the first place to the regional management. If they are serious they should go to the T.U.C.C.s. However, if there is considerable disquiet, I will see what can be done if the hon. Gentleman will inform me about it.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of my constituents would like the chance of complaining to the Minister, but, unfortunately, he is closing so many of our lines that they are denied this chance? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to reverse his decision on the Barnstaple-Bideford-Torrington line?
    Mr. Swingler: I think that we are coming on to the hon. Gentleman's lines in a moment. However, his constituents, as far as I know, have had a very full opportunity of going to the T.U.C.C.s.

    Disused Sleepers (Sale)
    Mr. Bessellasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board not to enter into exclusive contracts for the sale of disused sleepers to large companies, thus depriving small farmers and others of the right to purchase these sleepers at goods depôts.
    Mr. Swingler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bessell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great many small farmers are suffering considerable hardship as a result of the decision of the British Railways Board to sell disused sleepers to one large contracting company which is making a considerable profit which does not benefit British Railways and has the effect of causing real hardship to farmers who have depended on this source of supply for many years?
    Mr. Swingler: I am sorry, but this is a commercial decision for the Board, which has decided to sell disused sleepers en bloc by negotiation from its headquarters rather than on a local basis. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has taken up the matter with the Board. It is one which must be argued with the management of British Railways.
    Mr. Hamling: Would my hon. Friend care to sell some of the disused sleepers on the Opposition benches?

  TRANSPORT

    Road Accidents (Articulated Vehicles)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the frequency of accidents caused by the jack-knifing of articulated vehicles; and if he will take steps to counter this hazard.
    Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. We are in touch with the vehicle manufacturers in their investigations into this complicated problem and are actively encouraging them to find an early solution.
    Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the current Construction and Use Regulations which came into effect in August, 1964, are considered by the industry to be partly causing a lot of these jack-knifing incidents? Will he look into this point particularly?
    Mr. Swingler: I am not aware of that, and I will certainly look into it. Certain tests and experiments in brake distribution and load sensing devices are being carried out under the surveillance of a working party. We hope to have some technical proposals shortly.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: This is recognised as a very real problem and the motor industry research association and the College of Automobile Engineering at Cranfield are doing a lot of research into suspension and so on.
    Mr. Swingler: It is recognised as a serious problem. There is a Ministry working party on the question of braking power which is investigating it. We are in close touch with the manufacturers trying to find a technical solution.

    Bus Routes, Central London (Private Cars)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport whether, for an experimental period, he will ban the use of private cars during rush hours on selected bus routes in Central London.
    Mr. Swingler: We think that in the short term other traffic management measures, especially more urban clearways, offer better prospects for improving traffic flows generally. But we have also been considering various traffic measures, including some on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, designed to enable buses to work more efficiently and faster. Some such measures are already in operation. I have no doubt that the Greater London Council, which takes over responsibility for traffic in London on 1st April, will want to consider wherever possible measures having the same object.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not my hon. Friend showing that the Labour Government demonstrate a fresher and more dynamic approach to the solution of these problems? Will he tell the House what has been done on the lines suggested in my Question?
    Mr. Swingler: Much has been done so far. The greater proportion of the credit should go—and I should like to take the opportunity of paying tribute—to the London Traffic Management Unit, which has done a great deal in introducing experiments, schemes in tidal flow and urban clearways and matters of that kind. We want to see more experimentation and the extension of these things. We shall undoubtedly be discussing them with the Greater London Council.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Does not the Minister agree that before he even thinks of banning private vehicles from Central London, there must be a vast improvement in the London Transport bus services?
    Mr. Swingler: We want to see a great improvement in public transport because, as those who have read the Buchanan Report know, this is a necessary part of the solution of the problem. That is why we want further experiments on these lines.

    Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
    Sir G. Willsasked the Minister of Transport when the use of direction indicators on all vehicles will be made compulsory; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ennalsasked the Minister of Transport when the use of direction indicators on all vehicles will be made compulsory.
    Mr. Swingler: Most four-wheeled vehicles are now fitted with some form of direction indicator. New standards have been set by Regulation for indicators fitted to vehicles first registered after next August. We shall consider compulsory fitment when the effectiveness of these standards has been confirmed.
    Sir G. Wills: Will not the hon. Gentleman hasten these decisions as much as he can, bearing in mind the additional road safety which traffic indicators encourage, and also bearing in mind that this matter has for years past already been gone into by the last Government, who made great progress with its investigation?
    Mr. Swingler: We shall hasten it as much as possible, but we want to get
    408
    a general agreement on enforcement of standardisation of construction of indicators. As soon as that has been reached and confirmed we intend to introduce compulsory equipment.
    Mr. Ennals: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware how much many of us welcome the announcement which he has made and his serious approach to this problem? Will consideration be given to the confusion often caused by indicators which are very similar to the signs for brakes, and will he see that conformity also includes the colouring as well as the size of the indicators?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes, that is the intention, to get standardisation both of colour and size, but of course, my hon. Friend will realise that there are at present many different types in use and this is not a process which can be introduced overnight. As soon as standardisation is agreed upon compulsory equipment will be introduced.
    Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a minority of these indicators are far too bright and that they disconcert drivers following in cars behind and are liable to cause accidents? Will he, therefore, consider that aspect of the question, too?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes. I think the hon. Gentleman may have got something there. This is something which has had to be gone into very carefully. Precisely because there is still some uncertainty about the amount of standardisation, we are moving in these two stages, to establish standardised fitments and types, and then to introduce compulsory equipment.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that traffic indicators are important not only to drivers but also to pedestrians, particularly at pedestrian crossings and at crossroads, and that at present pedestrians very often have no indication what a driver of a car may do? Many accidents have resulted because pedestrians have had no such indication. Will my hon. Friend take that aspect into account?
    Mr. Swingler: What my hon. and learned Friend has said is the strongest possible argument for standardisation, so that pedestrians will know exactly what the signals mean.

    Drunken Drivers
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the invention at the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh of a device that will prevent a drunken driver from starting his car; and what action he will take.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: I understand that the value of this device has not yet been scientifically tested in the United States, but I am having further inquiries made.

    Private Cars (Seat Belts)
    Mr. Ennalsasked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory for car manufacturers to fit safety belts to the front seats as part of his road safety campaign.
    Mr. Hefferasked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to make it compulsory for car manufacturers to fit safety belts into cars as a safety precaution.
    Mr. Swingler: In the first instance we propose to make anchorage points for seat belts compulsory for new cars. When that has been done we will then consider my hon. Friends' suggestion.
    Meanwhile we strongly recommend the use of properly fitted seat belts. This can reduce the risk of serious injury to those in the front seats by nearly 80 per cent.
    Mr. Ennals: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and particularly the indication that anchorage points will be made compulsory. Is he aware that a great number of the accidents which have been caused in the past, particularly to drivers, could have been avoided if seat belts had been used? May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware of the problem of the Purchase Tax anomaly? If a seat belt is fitted to a new car, Purchase Tax is charged, but if it is fitted to a car after it has been bought Purchase Tax is not charged.
    Mr. Swingler: The Purchase Tax point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to seat belts, we wish to make as rapid progress as possible on this, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that new designs are still being introduced, and
    410
    again it is a problem of trying to arrive at an agreed standard which can be laid down if we are going to adopt compulsion. That is what we are in pursuit of at the moment, and we think that the introduction of compulsory anchorage points is a step in the right direction.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's majority may well have been reduced recently but for the fact that there were seat belts in the car in which I was travelling? This is therefore a matter of some political importance, as well as being of vital importance to the safety of the public.
    Mr. Swingler: I am mighty glad to have my hon. Friend's testimony as well as his support.
    Mr. Powell: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects the next instalment of the Construction and Use Regulations to be put before the House? Will he give an assurance that as soon as he is ready to move forward on one of these points he will not hold up the Regulations in order to combine them with others?
    Mr. Swingler: There will be no holdup in the Regulations which are in the course of preparation, and will be ready very soon.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the location of anchorage points so that the effect of the safety belt is not dependent on the structural integrity of the seats in which the passengers are travelling, to prevent compressive stresses being applied to the spines of the occupants of the seats?
    Mr. Swingler: This is precisely the kind of point which is being considered by the technicians at the moment, and is a matter for consultation between ourselves and the manufacturers; but it is in order to arrive at the best technical standard, and the best design, that we must have further consultations before the use of safety belts can be made compulsory.
    Mr. Rowland: Can my hon. Friend give some estimate of the extent to which the cost of seat belts will be reduced by the fact that their being made compulsory will increase the demand for them?
    Mr. Swingler: I am afraid that I have no estimate at the moment.
    Mr. Strauss: Can my hon. Friend speed this investigation? Is he aware that inquiries into this matter have been made by the authorities for three or four years past, and that we have constantly been told that until the inquiries are completed we cannot make any progress? Will he do what he can to see that the inquiries reach some conclusion before long?
    Mr. Swingler: We certainly want these inquiries to reach a conclusion very soon, but, as my right hon. Friend may know, new improvements in design are still being made, and we want these to be taken into account before we arrive at the kind of definition of safety belts that will be necessary when we introduce compulsion.
    Mr. William Clark: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether all motor cars under the control of the Government or the nationalised industries at this moment have safety belts?
    Mr. Swingler: All new cars in the Government pool are fitted with safety belts.

  SHIPPING

    Docks (Technological Advances)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Transport what priority he is giving in Her Majesty's Government's plans for technological advances to technological advances which would improve operations in the London and other docks and thus assist United Kingdom overseas trade.
    Mr. Tom Fraser: The Research Committee of the National Ports Council is formulating a programme of research. This will be pushed ahead with all possible speed.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that on 19th January, in this House, the Prime Minister spoke of the need for modernisation and the greater use of computers in the docks? While I recognise that this is only one aspect of the necessary improvement, will the Minister give this matter serious consideration in view of recent events?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I have been in close communication with the dock and harbour authorities and the National Ports Council on this matter. We will do our utmost within the resources available to us to apply to the docks all the
    412
    advances in technology known to us with a view to speeding the flow of trade.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Minister recognise that not less important than the problem of finding methods of handling on the docks is the problem of finding incentives to get the dock authorities to apply them? Secondly, when does the Minister expect that the preliminary statement on progress with the docks, which he foreshadowed in reply to me on 20th January, may be forthcoming?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not have before me a note of the promise I made about the docks on 20th January. I should like to look at it and get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree with the views reported in The Times yesterday by Sir Arthur Kirby for improving dock handling?
    Mr. Fraser: I have very close contact with Sir Arthur Kirby, but it would be wrong of me, in answer to Question No. 17 today, if I were to comment on a paper read by Sir Arthur Kirby two nights ago

    Docks (Delays)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Transport what reply he is making to the Ilford and District Manufacturers Transport Group in connection with its letter to him of 3rd February complaining of hauliers' difficulties with delays in the docks as a result of which the group's export scheme is threatened.
    Mr. Swingler: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) on 24th February.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not good enough? If we are going to bandy words about dynamism, this is a real example of dynamism by private enterprise in promoting exports. Will the hon. Gentleman, first, have consultations with his right hon. Friend about the labour delays in the docks, and, secondly, will he get his skates on?
    Mr. Swingler: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that the position has eased considerably since the time about which he is speaking, and

    413
    that several steps have been taken to deal with the situation. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a meeting has been arranged between this group and the Port of London Authority for 25th March. It would, therefore, be unwise for me to say anything further.

LONDON AIRPORT (SOUNDPROOFING OF PRIVATE DELLINGS)
The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, I will make a statement about the Government's proposals for alleviating the disturbance from aircraft noise.
After reviewing the measures currently being taken, we have come to the conclusion that some further assistance should be offered to residents in the vicinity of Heathrow. The volume of traffic, particularly jet traffic, at Heathrow is far greater than at any other aerodrome in this country and is bound to increase. We have, therefore, decided to accept the principle of the recommendation, made in the report of Sir Alan Wilson's Committee on Noise, about the soundproofing of rooms in private dwellings.
Grants of 50 per cent. subject to a maximum of £100, of the cost of soundproofing up to three rooms will be made available to householders in a defined area round Heathrow for work carried out with prior approval and to an approved design. The work must be completed by 31st December, 1970, when the scheme will come to an end. These grants will be payable in respect of soundproofing of existing private dwellings and those completed by 1st January, 1966, and will be confined to owners or residents in the defined areas on that date.
The area will comprise the Staines and Stanwell wards in Staines Urban District; Langley ward in the Borough of Slough; the parishes of Horton, Datchet and Wraysbury and part of the parish of Iver in Eton rural district; East Bedfont, Feltham North, Hounslow West, Hounslow Central, Hounslow South, Hounslow Heath, Cranford, Heston West, Heston East, Spring Grove and Isleworth South wards in the London Borough of Hounslow; and South ward and part of Hayes ward in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The area will be subject to review in the light of any changes in ward
414
or parish boundaries before 1st January, 1966.
The Government consider that the cost of these grants should fall on those whose activities cause the disturbance, or those who benefit from such activities. We intend, therefore, to introduce an Amendment to the Airports Authority Bill at present before Parliament to enable these grants to be paid by the British Airports Authority under a detailed scheme which will be published by Statutory Instrument. It will be for the Authority to determine whether, and, if so, how, their revenues need to be increased to meet the cost of these grants. Local authorities around Heathrow will be asked to help the Airports Authority in administering the scheme.
The Government accept the view of the Wilson Committee that the amount of aircraft noise around Heathrow is unique in this country, and that a similar arrangement for the payment of grants in respect of the soundproofing of private dwellings is not required in the vicinity of any other airport.
Mr. Maude: It is gratifying to see the Government attempting to carry out at least some of the Prime Minister's election pledges, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this proposal raises two rather difficult problems? First, there is the question of cost. He did not tell us how much this would cost by way of grant, in all. Is he aware that the charges at London Airport are already the highest in the world, and that if this proposal is to result in the charge there being substantially raised we may find ourselves losing business to other terminals?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the Amendment to the Bill is likely to work out from the point of view of enabling those whose areas are omitted from the Schedule to raise the question? If this proposal is introduced in another place, and then comes back to us in a Bill which has already left the House of Commons, the Amendment must be either phrased in general terms, to prevent the Bill becoming a hybrid Measure, or the Minister will have to reintroduce it into this House.
Finally, many hon. Members will wish to debate the question of the areas chosen for the allocation of grant. How can this be achieved?
Mr. Jenkins: On the question of this proposal fulfilling the indications of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, what my right hon. Friend said was that we would deal with this problem sympathetically and energetically. We have done so. We have accepted the Report of Sir Alan Wilson's Committee, which the previous Government rejected.
On the question of cost, on what we would regard as a realistic estimate—namely, that 40 per cent. of householders will choose to participate in the scheme—the cost will be £2½ million, and the annual cost of this to the Airports Authority will be £220,000. We regard that as manageable.
As for the method of procedure, we would propose to introduce a general Amendment in the Lords, which can be raised when the Bill comes back here, and to introduce the detailed scheme, including the areas interested, by Statutory Instrument.
Mr. Hunter: My right hon. Friend has already shown sympathy for the residents around London Airport by reducing the number of night flights, which the previous Government also refused to do. His statement today confirms the sympathy of the Government for those residents who suffer through aircraft noise, especially at night. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration to the case of old or sick people who are unable to make any financial contribution towards the soundproofing of their dwellings.
Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of the great interest which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) has taken in this difficult question. He had a Question down on this subject today. I will consider sympathetically the point that he has raised, but the Government accept the recommendation of Sir Alan Wilson's Committee that it is desirable that although we should proceed by means of a substantial contribution the householder should also make a contribution.
Mr. A. Royle: Is the Minister aware that his decision will please the people living round London Airport? I congratulate his Parliamentary Secretary on the hard work that I know he has done on this problem, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has completely ignored the sufferings of the people who
416
live under the glide path into London Airport?
As his Department is well aware, and has admitted on many occasions, people living in Richmond and Barnes are suffering severely. Will he extend his present arrangements to cover the soundproofing of houses throughout the area of Barnes and Richmond?
Mr. Jenkins: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. A. Royle) mentioned the Parliamentary Secretary, who has paid particular attention to this problem. I believe that the solution that I have announced will go a good way towards alleviating the problem for those living within the 55 Noise Number Index contour. That was the area picked out by the Wilson Committee. I hope that I will not be pressed to extend the area, because if that were done we would quickly get into a position in which we could not do anything without doing everything—and that is a recipe for doing nothing.
Mr. Rankin: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend that the totality of noise at London Airport is greater than at any other airport in Britain, but would he agree that the intensity of noise from a jet is just as great at Prestwick Airport as at London? In view of the fact that considerable discomfort is caused to householders as Prestwick and Troon because of jet noise, will my right hon. Friend say whether he would keep the position of Prestwick in mind in view of its expected development there so that, if necessary, something may be done to help the residents?
Mr. Jenkins: Having had the pleasure yesterday of visiting Prestwick Airport I have had strong representations made to me to increase the number of jet movements into and out of Prestwick, which I am considering very sympathetically. I must say to the House that however sympathetically I consider them I do not think it likely that in the near future the problem there will approach that at London Airport.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the implementation of this proposal in the Wilson Committee's Report will bring great relief to those in the southern villages of South Bucks which he has mentioned, as

417
in many other areas? Will he also bear in mind that this will not solve their problem, but will alleviate only one aspect of it? Will he please carry on most energetically in his Department the excellent work which I know has been carried on there for many years in tackling this problem at its source, and in all its aspects?
Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. We do not regard this important practical advance as having solved the problem of aircraft noise. We shall continue to endeavour to deal with it, so far as possible, at source.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about areas? This is a difficult problem. I know that he has to draw the line somewhere. He properly mentioned Slough and Datchet. May I ask for what reason Windsor has been excluded, as it is as close as the others and the noise is just as great?
Mr. Jenkins: It was excluded because it was outside the 55 N.N.I. chosen by the Wilson Committee, which went into this matter very thoroughly and reported that this was the best practical limit to set.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has not included part of the Borough of Twickenham? Is this a punishment to the hon. Member for Twickenham for "needling" the Prime Minister on this very point after the last election? Will the Minister bear in mind that the wards at Whitton and Heathfield, particularly, are very near to the airport, and are just as much affected as those of Hounslow, Cranford, and others?
Mr. JenkinsI was, of course, very much aware that in bringing forward any scheme of this sort I should be bound to open myself to "needling" not only from the hon. Member, but many other hon. Members, about the problem on the margins. None the less, I thought it worth while to go ahead with the scheme by sticking to the delimitation brought forward by the Committee.
Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that soundproofing is one part of the problem and that the
418
other part of the problem for the householder is air conditioning? Will it be possible to spend the grant on air conditioning?
Are the Government prepared to devote some resources to dealing with the fundamental source of the noise, by quietening jets?
Mr. Jenkins: I dealt with the latter part of the question in my reply to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), when I assured the House that we do not regard this as solving the problem, but as a means of alleviation.
On the question of air conditioning I understand that a ventilating unit is part of the soundproofing scheme which we expect to be used.
Mr. David Price: May I ask a question about a procedural point? Under the arrangements about which the right hon. Gentleman has told the House there will not be an opportunity for hon. Members to put questions or discuss the districts included or excluded from the plan, if it comes up in the form of a Statutory Instrument which is not amenable to amendment. Will the Minister take this into consideration and provide an opportunity, if the House wishes, to amend the list of parishes?
Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. In the Bill a general Amendment will be laid. I think that it would be inappropriate in the Bill to deal only with London Airport and not the other three airports whose noise generation was lower than the 55 N.N.I. of London Airport which is dealt with under the Bill. Details of the scheme will be brought forward by Statutory Instrument and no doubt matters about the limits could be raised.
Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that no matter what he does he will not completely satisfy the House? Will he comment on the time limit of 1970, bearing in mind that those who purchase property in the area after that time may be at a financial disadvantage if the property purchased has not been developed in this way?
Mr. Jenkins: I should certainly beat in mind that anything I, or any other Minister do, is not likely entirely to satisfy the House.

419
On the point made about the period till 1970, I would expect by that stage that a prospective purchaser buying property in the area would do so with his eyes—or should I say his ears—open, and, to that extent, would know what he was doing. I should expect a certain amount of price differential to develop between houses which had been soundproofed under the scheme and houses which had not.
Mr. A. Royle: In view of the refusal of the Minister to extend the limit to Richmond and Barnes, I wish to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

BILL PRESENTED
  RATING (UNOCCUPIED HEREDITAMENTS)
  Mr. A. RoyleBill to provide for the rating of owners of unoccupied hereditaments; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Lubbock; supported by Mr. Ivor Richard, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Weitzman, Dr. David Kerr, and Mr. Lipton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed.[Bill 96.]

  HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS)
  3.47 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway.
  I am encouraged to hope that on this occasion we shall be able to pass my proposed Bill through the House, particularly in view of the reference made to this matter by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio when he addressed the House recently.
  The Bill I seek to introduce is for the purpose of removing an anomaly in our laws. Believe it or not, a medieval rule still exists by which horses, cows or sheep can stray on to a road by right, thus causing serious injury, and sometimes death, to road users, without the owner being liable for damages to the person injured or the dependent relatives of a person who may be killed.
  The road user involved might be the most careful, experienced and reliable driver of a motor car, someone using every precaution, and yet may find himself in sudden collision with animals, due entirely to the animals rushing on to the road and making it impossible for him to avoid an accident. As a result the driver might suffer the most severe consequences, without any redress from the person through whose fault the animals were enabled to stray on to the road.
  Lord Justice Omerod, in a case heard in the Court of Appeal towards the end of 1962—Ellis v. Johnstone—said that the rule which allowed sheep and cattle to stray on to the highway was of ancient origin. It went back through the centuries to the time when fields were not hedged or fenced and roads were merely tracks. He gave a very clear indication, as did a fellow judge—one who was highly respected in this House, Lord Justice Donovan—that it was time the law was changed by Act of Parliament.
  This untenable position of the law of civil liability for damage done by animals has been the subject of concern to the community for very many years. Yet, although a committee set up as far

  421
  back as 1953 which was presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of the time, Lord Goddard, gave its report in support of change, and although attempts have been made on a number of occasions to get a Bill on to the Statute Book to carry their recommendations into effect, including a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and several by myself, these have not been successful.
  In another case, Lord Green, Master of the Rolls, said:
  "The rule appears to be ill-adapted to modern conditions. A farmer who allows his cow to stray through a gap in his hedge on to his neighbour's land, where it consumes a few cauliflowers, is liable in damages to his neighbour, but if, through a similar gap in the hedge, it strays on to the road and causes the overturning of a motor omnibus, with death or injury to 30 or 40 people, he is under no liability at all. I scarcely think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs in the 20th century. If it should prove not to be open to the House of Lords to deal with the rule, the attention of the legislature might be directed to considering the whole position with a view to ensuring the safety of His Majesty's subjects when they are lawfully using the highway …
  On any view we think it desirable that the rule should be modified to meet modern conditions of traffic where a road runs through enclosed country. It is remarkable that, whereas section 25 of the Highway Act, 1864, imposes a penalty on the owner of cattle 'found straying on or lying about any highway or across any part thereof or by the sides thereof except on such parts of any highway as pass over any common or waste or unenclosed land', the law gives no remedy to a person who is injured as a consequence. As already stated, we think liability should depend on negligence, and accordingly recommend that an occupier should he under a duty to take reasonable care that cattle or poultry lawfully on land in his occupation do not escape therefrom on to the highway, and that the occupier should be responsible for all damage caused to persons or chattels (damage to realty being already covered by the action of cattle trespass) by cattle or poultry which escape owing to a breach of that duty whether or not acting in accordance with their ordinary nature."
  I was approached several years ago by Mr. and Mrs. Woodward, the parents of a very promising young woman teacher, who was involved in an accident caused by a straying animal. It was a heart-rending case—a loving daughter of ability and talent was taken from them by an accident of this nature. They were and are determined that this should not happen to others if they can possibly help it.
  422
  As I stated in the House when I applied for leave to introduce the Bill before I have received a petition containing about 600 names, from people in a small portion of the country, including my own constituency, for a change in the law. The Woodwards and I are confident that a vast number of further signatories to the petition could be obtained, but I am hoping that this will not be necessary, and that the House will now realise that a Bill of this nature is long overdue.
  I have also received a very large number of letters from various parts of the country and I should like to read one or two short extracts, so that the House will readily realise the importance of this matter. From the Ferndale and District Motor Cycle and Car Club, I have received a letter which says:
  "I enclose brief details of nine incidents involving animals on the road. My remarks to my wife on reading the paragraph were, 'At last this menace may be ended'. The nine incidents reported are a very very small percentage of incidents which all motorists in our area have been putting up with for years"—
  this is in South Wales—
  "and I do not honestly know of any incident where the owner of the animal has been made to pay the penalty.
  The sheep in this area are a disgrace to all respectable farmers everywhere and despite the grand efforts made by the local authority to 'impound' them, they still wander the streets by day and night, and at night they simply cannot be seen until they are a few yards only away."
  The writer then gives a number of incidents. He says that a Mr. Thomas, of 78, James Street, Maerdy, Rhondda, was involved in an incident, and adds the details:
  "Sheep wandered from behind parked car, in avoiding sheep driver crashed into house wall. Brand new side-car written off, replaced by insurance company—lost no-claim bonus. Damage to animal nil. Damage to machine, rear wheel, front forks damaged. Personal injuries, bruised fingers, leg and shock. Lost two days' work. No compensation from owner of sheep."
  He then gives similar illustrations of cases in which very much more serious damage was caused.
  I cannot believe that anyone in the House would want an archaic law of this nature to continue. It may well be that, when the Bill comes forward—if I am given leave to present it—some Amendments will be necessary to cover

  423
  exceptional cases. But one thing is 100 per cent. certain in my mind, and that is that this kind of position cannot be allowed to continue to exist. Indeed, so strong has the opinion of the public, as well as of the judiciary, been in respect of this, that I cannot believe that any hon. Member would wish to see a Bill of this nature stopped.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir B. Janner, Mr. Probert, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Steele, Mr. Ensor, Mr. Lipton, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Winterbottom, and Mr. Boston.

  HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS)
  Sir Barnett JannerBill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 9th April and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

  DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

    VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a number of Officers, Airmen and Air women, not exceeding 136,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

    AIR ESTIMATES
    3.57 p.m.
    The Chairman: Mr. Millan.
    Mr. Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Dr. King. May I raise with you a point of order which refers to the proceedings which took place last Monday in Committee? It will be within your recollection that, on that occasion, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) made a speech in which the burden of the first part was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) had improperly altered the record in HANSARD of a speech which he made last year when he was Secretary of State for War.
    Yesterday, this matter was raised in the House by the hon. Member for Buckingham, but Mr. Speaker, having been able to make his investigations, found that the alteration which had been made in HANSARD had been properly made and that no imputation whatsoever could be levelled against my right hon. Friend. Further, Mr. Speaker went on to say that, as far as he was concerned, whatever had been said in Committee was no concern of his, and, therefore, he resisted invitations made from this side of the House to ask the hon. Member for Buckingham to withdraw the remark.
    Mr. Speaker said that he had no formal knowledge of what had been said, but he had understood from the hon. Member for Buckingham yesterday that he had made

    425
    a general charge against this side of the House and no specific charge against any particular person, and certainly not against my right hon. Friend. I suppose that in those circumstances it would be common ground that the hon. Member for Buckingham would not be bound to withdraw a general charge, although, by implication, he would be bound to withdraw a specific one.
    It will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings on Monday that the hon. Member for Buckingham said:
    "I do not want to kick the backside of the right hon. Member for Harrogate, but …"
    I omit some words, and then the hon. Gentleman went on:
    "there is evidence that they"—
    meaning the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends—
    "cooked the books to suit their party …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 72–3.]
    Mr. Robert Maxwell: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Kershaw: By his applause at that statement, I imagine that the hon. Member for Buckingham is repeating that my right hon. Friend, as well as his other right hon. Friends, cooked the books.
    In these circumstances, is it not perfectly clear that a specific charge was made against my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate, a very grave charge, indeed, which the hon. Member now knows to be untrue? Would it not, Dr. King, be in accordance with the customs of the House and in accordance with ordinary courtesy and the rules of order that the hon. Member for Buckingham should now be asked to withdraw that remark against my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order, Dr. King. Before you comment on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), may I make a submission to you? I submit that the representation which the hon. Member has given to the Committee of what occurred on Monday is completely inaccurate. I think that this is strictly relevant to the point which he has raised, because when the matter was raised on Tuesday I do not think all hon. Members in the House were fully aware of what had occurred on Monday. Now,
    426
    those of us who have been able to check it find the situation entirely different.
    Charges were made yesterday against my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), some of the most odious kind, a charge, for example, like that made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams), which is the kind of charge that we fully expect from a Tory gentleman but nobody else—
    The Chairman The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will deal only with the point of order which has arisen, and that is about what happened in the Committee on Monday and not what happened in the House yesterday.
    Mr. Foot: I apologise, Dr. King, if I was misled, but I am dealing strictly with what happened on Monday. My claim is that the submission which has just been made to you by the hon. Member for Stroud is a gross misrepresentation of what actually occurred in the Committee on Monday. I can prove it, I think, by giving you two quotations.
    In column 75 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, after he had heard a statement made by the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), said:
    "I entirely accept that what the right hon. Gentleman did was perfectly honourable …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 75.]
    There was never any charge against the right hon. Gentleman's honour.
    My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who is sometimes accused of stating his opinions rather strongly in the House, referred to the right hon. Member for Harrogate and said that he had played a perfectly honourable part in this. So what in heaven's name are the Opposition screaming about? Why have they got such thin skins? If the House of Commons is to debate every charge of this nature which is made, and we are to have all this paraphernalia, we shall never be able to get on with any business.
    Indeed, the right hon. Member for Harrogate never supposed that any charge against his honour had been made, because—this is my last quotation, Dr. King—he said, in column 73:
    "The hon. Gentleman"—

    427
    that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham—
    "appears to suggest that, either dishonestly or somewhat simple-mindedly—it did not seem quite clear which—I had had an alteration made in HANSARD."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 73.]
    So the right hon. Member for Harrogate himself was accepting the fact that it was quite possible that all that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham was alleging against him was that he had acted in a simple-minded fashion. So far as I know, that is not an unparliamentary expression, and if it were, Parliamentary business would be utterly impossible.
    I suggest, therefore, with great respect, Dr. King, that you should rule on this matter in the strongest possible terms, because if we were to be held up with mares' nests of this character, and if it were suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham had said something improper when, at the time that he was making the charge, he made it clear that he was not attacking the honour of the right hon. Gentleman—if, in such circumstances, we are to go through all this arrangement of having points of order raised and demands for apology, a mockery will be made of Parliamentary business as a whole.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): I should have been reluctant to intervene in this matter, Dr. King, but the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has given me notice, asking me to be here today.
    With respect, Dr. King, may I draw your attention to the circumstances in which the phrase "cooking the books" first came about? I charge no copyright. It was on 28th July, 1958. Following a statement by the then Minister of Defence, the ex-Minister of Defence, now Viscount Head, made a charge against the Government. Referring to the size of the Army, he said:
    "I was additionally worried because that size did not seem to be a balanced force fitting our commitment, but it coincided exactly and precisely with the actuarial estimate of the number of recruits that we were likely to get."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1958; Vol. 592, c. 990.]
    That was cooking the books. I said in column 1017 on 28th July, 1958, that it was cooking the books, I still think that it was cooking the books, and as long as there is breath in my body I shall go on
    428
    saying that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have cooked the books about defence in the interests of the Tory Party.
    The Chairman: Order. We are discussing a question of order, not a question of argument.
    Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Further to that point of order, Dr. King. The Committee has heard the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who drew attention to certain saving clauses that were put in through interventions by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General.
    Those saving clauses were, of course, very much appreciated, but the real point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was to make out that the words used by the hon. Member for Buckingham were general and not specific and that he was not, in fact, referring directly and exclusively to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden).
    But, although those saving clauses may have been there, at the bottom of col. 72 are the words:
    "… he"—
    that, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate—
    "and his right hon. Friends"—
    and then it goes on four lines later:
    "cooked the books".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 72–73.]
    Mr. Maxwell: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Iremonger: The words "he cooked the books" which are here, and have not been corrected in HANSARD, are a specific and personal reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. The right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General, in col. 75—I should be obliged for the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General, who has been courteous enough to attend; I am referring directly to him and quoting his words—said:
    "I found that the right hon. Gentleman had been trying to get away with it by putting in… attached".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 75.]
    instead of "detached".
    That again, was a direct and personal reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I think that the

    429
    Committee will have appreciated the fact that the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General definitely did impute dishonesty. All that we on this side of the Committee are asking is that they should say that that is what they meant and that the specificity of it was not, in fact, intended.
    The Chairman: Order. I think that I have heard enough on the point of order, I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides who are trying to advise me in the issue before us. Perhaps it will help if I now say a few words on the point of order which has been raised.
    First of all, I would deprecate from the Chair any tendency to go back to the deliberations of the Committee two days ago. If there were any imagined breach of order in the Committee proceedings of Monday—and, as hon. Members must know, I have studied them most carefully since Monday—then the appropriate moment to have raised the point of order was during the deliberations of the Committee at the moment at which hon. Members thought that Order was breached.
    I have every confidence in the Temporary Chairman, the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), and I am sure that every hon. Member has every confidence in the Chairman on that occasion. This particular point was not raised. The point of order which was raised was another one and was dealt with very competently by the hon. Lady. That is the first point.
    The second point I would make even more strongly is that I would deprecate any attempt on the part of any hon. Member to invite the Chairman of Committees to go behind a Ruling which Mr. Speaker made yesterday, when this matter was raised. It would be intolerable if the Chairman of Ways and Means were asked to express any opinion contrary to that which was expressed by Mr. Speaker in the Chair in the House.
    I would only say that, as far as I am concerned, any matters of order which were appropriate to be raised and which hon. Members felt that they should raise on Monday were raised and were dealt with by the Chairman on that occasion. I hope that we can now proceed to the
    430
    business of the day, which is to discuss the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Iremonger: Further to the point of order, Dr. King. With the greatest possible respect, and at the risk of imposing on the patience of the Committee, this is an important matter. If I might reflect on the two points you have made, may I say, with great respect, that I think that, in regard to the first point, all hon. Members of the Committee would agree with me that this was not pursued vigorously at the time in Committee because my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) had not been able to refresh his mind as to the actual facts of the alteration made in HANSARD—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has misunderstood everything I said. I have deprecated the habit of pursuing on Wednesday matters which should have been raised, if at all, on Monday and I would regret that the Committee should now try to consider the motives which were in the minds of hon. Members when they did not raise on Monday a point of order which they might have appropriately raised on Monday. I hope that the Committee may now proceed with its business.
    Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged for your patience, Dr. King. Without pursuing that first point, what Mr. Speaker ruled was not on this point; it was that the Chair—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has now misunderstood the second point which I made. I am not prepared in the Committee to discuss the Rulings which Mr. Speaker made in the House yesterday.
    Mr. Iremonger: This is the Committee, Dr. King, and the Ruling is for the Chair of the Committee; and, without discussing what Mr. Speaker ruled, he merely observed that the Ruling was for the Chair in this Committee. With great respect, it was for that reason that we asked for your Ruling from the Chair upon the subject.
    The Chairman: Order. The Chair has already given a Ruling on the matter raised. I cannot help it if the hon. Member could not understand the Ruling which the Chair made.
    Mr. Kershaw: Further to the point of order. With great respect, and without wishing to hold up the proceedings of the Committee, it is not a question of not being able to understand what you are saying, Dr. King. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when this same matter was raised with him, said:
    "I am not criticising anybody …but I cannot deal in any way with matters spoken in Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 245–6.]
    I ask, therefore, where our remedy lies? At the time, in Committee, it was to the knowledge of the Committee that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) had given notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), very properly, that he would raise this matter. It was, therefore, for my right hon. Friend to take up the point, which he did, and he denied it. But as the point was persisted in afterwards we had no remedy but to bring it up yesterday, and Mr. Speaker said that he would not deal with it. So where are we? When can we have it dealt with? I think that this is a genuine difficulty. We are not trying to be difficult, Dr. King.
    The Chairman: May I say that I have no doubts in my mind of the genuineness of the hon. Gentleman in raising the point which has been raised, and, as a good democrat, when he asks, "What is my remedy" I must tell him that the remedy which the hon. Member had—large, flowing and ample—was on Monday, in Committee, when the issue was before the Committee.
    I am not prepared to have a Committee on the Air Estimates spend a lot of time discussing what might or might not have happened in Committee on Army Estimates on Monday. I so ruled. I have ruled that the Chairman in Committee on that occasion was competent to deal with any point of order which arose and that whatever points of order were raised were dealt with. I hope that we may now proceed to the business of the day.
    Mr. Stephen Hastings: Further to the point of order. I wonder whether you would be prepared to suggest to Mr. Speaker that he might use his great influence to try to persuade the Prime Minister—
    The Chairman: Order. No. I am sure, having heard a half sentence from the hon. Gentleman, that what he is going to suggest is utterly unthinkable. I think, therefore, that we may leave that suggestion where it is.
    Mr. Hastings: With the greatest respect, Dr. King. I wonder whether I may be allowed to put that to the test and take my point of order a little further?
    The Chairman: I understood—and I am very kind to the hon. Gentleman—that what he was asking was that the Chairman of Ways and Means should make some kind of suggestion to Mr. Speaker as to the kind of influence which Mr. Speaker should hold. This Chairman is not prepared to make any such suggestions—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Chairman:—and it was on those grounds that I refused to hear the hon. Gentleman further. However, if he wishes to raise another point then perhaps he will address me.
    Mr. Hastings: It is not exactly like that, Dr. King. I was suggesting that you might be prepared to ask Mr. Speaker to use his influence, or perhaps you yourself might use your great influence, to try to persuade the Prime Minister to send his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) on a long Parliamentary mission abroad.
    The Chairman: Order. I hope that all kinds of well-meaning and innocent suggestions will not exacerbate things further. I had better say, for the record, that neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor Mr. Speaker has any influence over the Prime Minister.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Chairman: Seriously, this is a suggestion which I could not entertain.
    4 19 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Bruce Millan): After that interlude, I hope that we may now proceed with the Air Estimates. Since this is the first occasion on which I have had the responsibility and pleasure of introducing the Air Estimates, perhaps I might be allowed to start on a personal note.

    433
    When I took up my present office, about five months ago, I had had absolutely no connection with the Royal Air Force. My noble Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force had, of course, served in the R.A.F. during the war and had a long connection with the Service.
    This was something entirely new to me, so perhaps I may be allowed to say how very much impressed I have been personally with what I have seen of the Royal Air Force over the last few months, particularly from the efficiency point of view. In the operational commands at home, for example, we maintain an extremely high state of preparedness. Anyone visiting the stations at home can very quickly see the high level of professional skills which the serving airmen and officers bring to the duties which are allotted to them.
    The same thing is true—perhaps it is even more true—of the overseas commands. I had the pleasure of visiting the Middle East Command just a couple of months ago, and I was extremely impressed by the skill and morale of our airmen in that extremely difficult area, in circumstances in which they were often very hard-pressed indeed. I should like to put on record the very fine impression of the Service I have gained during these first few months.
    The Estimates we are now discussing amount to £562 million. After making certain adjustments to last year's total to allow for the transfer of some services between Defence Votes and to Civil Votes the figure we are now discussing is about £45 million higher than the Estimates prepared for 1964–65. About £8 million of this increase is in respect of pay and pensions, but the bulk of the increase—about £37 million—is on Vote 7, and is accounted for by larger deliveries of aircraft and stores than in the current year, 1964–65.
    I shall have something to say later about some of the equipment we are expecting in the current year, but I should like to make the general point now that the Estimates we are now discussing are very largely Estimates prepared by the outgoing Administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already explained to the House how the Government were able, in the defence budget as a whole, to make very
    434
    considerable savings—amounting in all to about £55 million—compared with the Estimates which the previous Administration had intended to present to the House. Some of that saving, naturally enough, came in the Air Estimates. By and large, however, it is still true that these Estimates are Estimates on lines prepared by the previous Government because, of course, particularly on the equipment side, it is not possible to make short-term major changes. That requires a considerable amount of time to put through effectively.
    From the long-term planning point of view, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced, the Government are at present carrying out comprehensive defence reviews, and these will affect the Royal Air Force as well as the other Services. They will largely determine the future size and shape of the Royal Air Force, but even before the conclusion of these reviews we have taken certain decisions about some of the major aircraft programmes that we inherited from the previous Government. I hope later to say a good deal about that from the point of view of the Royal Air Force's operational efficiency, but I should like, first, to deal with perhaps rather less contentious matters than the aircraft supply programmes.
    First, I refer to manpower, because this debate takes place formally on Vote A, which lays down the manpower ceiling of the Royal Air Force in 1965–66. The Committee will have noticed from page 145 of the Estimates that we are proposing that Vote A should be 4,000 less in 1965–66 than in the current year—136,000 as against 140,000. We expect the total strength of the Service—and the figures I have just quoted are, of course ceiling figures—during the next year to be about 132,000, which will give us a trained strength—allowing for those on training—of about 123,000.
    I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the Royal Air Force we have been running down our numbers; and that during the last year that run-down has been taking place against a background of an increasingly difficult situation in Borneo. The figures laid down for the manpower ceiling last year did not take account of the Borneo emergency. From the long-term point of view, we are reluctant to recruit

    435
    more men simply to meet what we hope will be a short-term situation in Malaysia and Borneo, but the fact that we are meeting this additional commitment without additional recruitment means that there is a good deal of strain on certain parts of the Service at present. Again, it is a tribute to the efficiency of the Service that over the last year it has been able to bear that strain so successfully.
    My noble Friend and I are, in general, satisfied with the present recruitment position. There are certain difficulties—obviously, the pattern is not the same over the whole range of recruitment—but, in general, it is true to say that we are getting the numbers of men we want. This refers to officers as well as to airmen. Even more important than the numbers is the fact that we are still getting the high quality of recruitment we require for the Service. There has been a certain amount of difficulty in recruiting officers for direct-entry aircrew. We are getting good figures there, but they are not quite good enough, and we hope that the position will improve over the current year.
    We are also in some difficulty in recruiting officers for ground branches, where professional qualifications are required. This is a reflection of the national shortage of professionally-and technically-qualified people. It affects, in particular, our Technical Branch. This is a very big branch and recruits highly technically qualified officers. We also have certain difficulties in the Education Branch, particularly in the Women's Royal Air Force.
    Generally speaking, however, our officer recruitment is good, and that is particularly true of Cranwell and of our university graduate entrants. The position at Cranwell has improved just over the last year or so. The entry there has risen by about 20 per cent. in two years, and we are still maintaining the high standard we require.
    Perhaps I may here say something about the sources of our recruitment to Cranwell, since one of my hon. Friends recently spoke of Sandhurst. I do not want to draw invidious comparisons between Sandhurst and Cranwell, but I would point out that we have a very wide range of recruitment at Cranwell,
    436
    where rather less than 30 per cent. of the entrants come from the independent schools—the public schools—and rather more than 70 per cent. come from the direct-grant and grammar schools. We are very happy that that should be the situation, and would, in fact, like to spread our sources of recruitment even wider than we do at present. The university cadetship scheme for the General Duties and Technical Branches has also been successful, and we had 44 cadetships last year from that source.
    There is one particular development in officer training that I should like to mention—the amalgamation during the current year, at Cranwell, of the Royal Air Force College, which is already there, and of the Technical College, which is at present at Henlow. The cadet entry in October this year will be the first in which all cadets will enter Cranwell. They will live and train together in one establishment, and this will provide an excellent opportunity for future officers to understand the rôles and responsibilities of officers in other branches.
    The October entry will be followed by the move to Cranwell of the technical cadets and officers who are already under training at Henlow, so that the complete merger will be completed by January, 1966. We have, of course—at least, in fairness I should say that the previous Administration have, since this move was planned some time ago—improved the facilities at Cranwell to meet the new situation. In all, the move has cost about £2¼ million, but on personnel costs alone, apart from other savings, we will be saving about £¼ million a year.
    As to airmen, again the situation is in general satisfactory, although we are by no means complacent about it and there are one or two administrative trades where the situation is rather difficult at the moment and we have, for example, to retain men in the Service when they would themselves want to be released on purchase. But generally speaking, again, the situation is good.
    This year will be the second year in which our new apprentice entry scheme will be operating. Last year the craft apprenticeship and the administrative apprenticeship categories were largely filled and we got recruits of good quality. The technician apprenticeships are rather more difficult to fill, because here we

    437
    really are asking for extremely high qualifications. We are taking in boys between 16 and 17½ who have four O levels in the G.C.E., including mathematics and a science subject. These are very high standards and, although we are getting a fair number of boys under this apprenticeship scheme, there is a difficulty in attracting a sufficient number of boys with these educational qualifications.
    The whole question of manpower—getting the right kind of manpower, the right quality as well as the right numbers of manpower—is absolutely fundamental to the Service. Perhaps I might just mention, as an illustration of this, that personnel costs amount to about 46 per cent. of the present Defence (Air) Estimates; that is, something over £250 million. It is in fact our major cost, and the Committee will be glad that this is so.
    If we are to attract men and women to make their careers in the R.A.F., we have to pay them well; we have to clothe them well; we have to feed them well; and we have to see that their amenities are taken care of. But, because the expenses are so high, we have to ensure that we manage the Service in as efficient a way as we possibly can to make sure that there are not considerable wastes taking place.
    I want, therefore, to turn now to the question of management in the Service. The first point I would make—it is something which I may frankly say came as a rather pleasant surprise to me—is that the Service itself is extremely willing to improve its own efficiency, even without prodding from Ministers or from the House of Commons or from anybody else. In fact, a considerable amount has been done on Service initiative, even distinct from ministerial initiative, to improve the efficiency of the Service over the last few years.
    While we are still all agreeing with one another, may I pay a tribute on this to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), the former Minister, because a good deal of the improvements in efficiency which we have had over the last few years took place under his Ministry. However, to introduce a note of controversy now, by contrast, this does not invalidate the point that the Government made in the Defence White Paper about the general state of our forces at present.
    438
    What the two sides of the Committee are quarrelling about is not the management of the Services, but the general policy directives which the Services have been given by the previous Government and now by the present Government. If the Service gets clear policy directives, the Service will carry these out efficiently and effectively. But the difficulties that we are in in the defence field at the minute arise precisely because these clear policy decisions or directives were not taken by the previous Administration. That is the thing that we are trying to put right at the present time.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: Surely it is clear that policy directives were given by the last Administration, both for the operation in Kuwait and also, on the conventional side, for the operations in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman is getting at.
    Mr. Millan: I am talking about the policy in regard to the rôle, the shape and the size of the Royal Air Force at the present time. The only clear policy decision which was ever taken on that particular matter by the previous Administration was that taken by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in 1957, with absolutely disastrous results from the point of view of the R.A.F.
    I return to the question of management. There is one decision which I want to announce now. This is an important management decision which has recently been taken. It is that the Flying Training and Technical Training Commands are to be amalgamated into a single Training Command which will come into existence on 1st June, 1968, with its headquarters at R.A.F. Brampton in Huntingdonshire. This amalgamation can be done because Flying Training and Technical Training Commands have been contracting in size, both in the number of personnel under training and in the number of active stations under command.
    This reorganisation will produce significant economies with no diminution at all of the present high standard of training. I want to emphasise that there is no question of the present standards being reduced in any way. We estimate that in due course the savings will be in the region of 278 Service and civilian posts and nearly £400,000 in annual

    439
    runnings costs. There will also be consequential economies arising in the lower formations. This is only part of our general review of flying training from the point of view of increasing the efficiency of it, while maintaining the high standards that necessarily we have to set.
    Perhaps from the efficiency point of view I might just mention that the wastage rates for aircrew training have been improved very considerably over the last three or four years. The wastage rate, for example, for direct entry pilots has been reduced by more than one-third. For direct entry navigators the wastage rate has been reduced by half. There has been a very considerable reduction in the wastage rate for air electronic officers. This means a great deal in training costs, because it is an extremely expensive proposition. It is quite frighteningly expensive to train aircrew at the present time, and anything that we can do to reduce wastage rates does, apart from anything else, save us very considerable sums of money. There have been other improvements in flying training and, if hon. Gentlemen are interested, I should be glad to deal with that matter in winding up later today.
    There is one other management question which I now want to mention. I think that the Committee will be interested to know that in the coming months we shall be starting to bring into use two very large computers. One of these is at Hendon. It will control the storage and distribution of all R.A.F. stores, wherever they may be all over the world. When I was in Aden the other day—I think that it was at Salalah or Masirah, one of the most remote stations—I was interested to see the stores there being done on electronic machines geared into the new computer which is to be introduced at Hendon. So even in the remotest parts of the world we will, in fact, be controlling our stores by this new computer, and we hope to save about £1 million because of this.
    The second computer that I want to mention is being installed at Gloucester. It will keep all the personal records of airmen and maintain their pay accounts and will asist the management in manpower planning. It will eventually lead to substantial savings in manpower,
    440
    although these will mostly be in uniformed as distinct from civilian personnel. The whole operation will take another two or three years now, but the computer is coming into operation very soon.
    In fact, a considerable number of improvements in efficiency of the kind that I have just mentioned are taking place in the Service all the time, and a considerable amount of hard work has been put into the introduction of some of these improved methods, particularly as there have been what I might legitimately call vested interests in the Service who have been affected by the new methods. I think that it is a tribute to the Service that they have gone in so smoothly without any kind of obstruction at all.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the computers are British or American? Also, will his Department be having consultations with the Minister of Technology when there are any future applications for computers in the Service?
    Mr. Millan: It is intended that the Ministry of Technology will co-ordinate the use of computers, particularly the introduction of new ones, in Government service as a whole. That was announced the other day.
    The computer at Hendon is British. I believe that it is an I.C.T. or an A.E.I. computer.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is an A.E.I. computer.
    Mr. Millan: I am sorry, however, to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the new computer at Gloucester is not British. It is a Remington Rand Univac. This is regrettable, but, I might say that this was done under the previous Administration. Without wishing to say anything detrimental about the Univac, I think it a pity that it is not a British computer. However, now that the Ministry of Technology is paying particular attention to computer development, I hope that we shall be able to use British computers in the future.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman say to what factors he attributes the improvement in the wastage rates in respect of aircrews?
    Mr. Millan: A number of factors are involved there. General improvements are taking place all the time, but it is largely a matter of seeing at an early stage in training that unsuitable candidates are wasted away there, so to speak, without allowing them to go to advanced training stages where it becomes even more expensive. For example, we have a fair number of flying scholarships which are operated through the A.T.C. There are something like 350 of these a year. Young people are able to get a certain amount of flying training before they join the Service at all. There are a number of different ways of improving the quality of our intake, quite apart from what we do with the personnel when they get into the Service. There are many things involved and there has been a general improvement in the last three or four years.
    I should now like to turn to some of the current activities of the Commands of the Royal Air Force, and to say something about the new equipment and aircraft which are coming into operation in the current year. First, taking Bomber Command, the front line has now received its full complement of Victor 2s, and re-equipment with Vulcan 2s has entered its final phase. Until they are run down early in the 1970s it is our intention that British V-bombers, except those required for commitments outside Europe, should form a major component of the Atlantic nuclear force which we have proposed to our N.A.T.O. allies.
    This is very much in line with the policy on which we fought the election, of using the British V-bombers but committing them to some kind of integrated nuclear force until they run out some time early in the 1970s. The V-bombers, of course, apart from having a nuclear capacity, also have a useful conventional rôle and are available in this capacity in all parts of the world.
    As to the Valiants, it has already been announced that these have had to be grounded. We have managed to take a certain amount of urgent action particularly on the Victor tanker programme and we hope to receive six partially modified Victor tankers by the end of August and more of these will come after the end of August. They will build up over the next two years or so. Also from next
    442
    month we shall be starting to build up the new Victor 2 reconnaissance force.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could my hon. Friend give us any idea of the cost of these aircraft?
    Mr. Millan: I could not give that information "off the cuff". I do not think that we have ever disclosed the cost of these aircraft, or, indeed, the cost of any other of our combat aircraft. If I am able to get a figure and if my hon. Friend likes to wait till midnight I will try to give some indication then, but I am not making any rash promises.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: Before my hon. Friend continues, may I ask him whether he intends to give any more information on how the V-bombers are to be used east of Suez? I should like to know whether they will carry an independent nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Millan: This point was put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the other day. He said then that it has never been the policy of this Government or, indeed, of previous Governments to disclose in public the deployment of our forces or the weapons which they are carying, whether east of Suez or in any other area.
    Coming to Fighter Command, the re-equipment with the Mark III Lightning, which started in the first half of 1964, will continue throughout next year. It is a much superior aircraft compared with the earlier marks in terms of speed and of range. The main weapons which we shall be buying this year are Bloodhound 2, Red Top, which is an advanced air-to-air missile for the Mark III Lightning, and the AS30, the air-to-surface missile for the Canberra strike aircraft.
    Perhaps I may mention one point about the Bloodhound surface-to-air missile which is used in a ground defence rôle particularly for the protection of airfields and bases. The first squadron of Bloodhound 2s was deployed to Singapore last year. We also have some deployed in the United Kingdom for training purposes and a Bloodhound 2 site will be established at West Raynham in Norfolk during the coming year.
    Turning to Coastal Command, the most important decision that has been taken is the decision to replace the older Mark II Shackleton, which was introduced in 1952, with the Comet which

    443
    is to be specially developed for this purpose. A whole range of alternative aircraft were considered before this final decision was taken, but we are satisfied that the Comet replacement will do all the tasks that we intend it to perform.
    Perhaps while I am speaking about Coastal Command I might slightly diverge for a moment and refer to the part that the Service continues to play on errands of mercy. Last year, Coastal Command's search and rescue helicopters were called out 416 times to help in emergencies concerning drowning bathers, marooned holiday-makers, capsized small craft and shipping in distress; and 142 people were rescued, most of whom would probably have been lost but for the prompt assistance of the search and rescue organisation. Overseas, a further 73 people were rescued by our helicopters and marine craft. This work goes on all the time, often in atrocious weather conditions, and this is a useful service that Coastal Command performs, among its other activities.
    Coming to Transport Command, there will be certain improvements in our smaller aircraft which, if the Committee wishes, I shall be glad to deal with in detail later. During the current year the Command will receive the first of its order of 10 long-range freighter Belfasts and at the end of 1966 we shall get the first of our new VCIOs. Looking ahead to the introduction of these two aircraft, we are preparing Brize Norton, which was formerly a United States Air Force base, in Oxfordshire, as a new transport base for these aircraft.
    The Comets and the Britannias will continue to operate from their own base at Lyneham and continue, in particular, to make a useful contribution to trooping in the Middle and the Far East. As the Committee knows, most of our trooping is done on charter either by the private companies or now by the nationalised airline corporations, but Transport Command also makes a useful contribution to trooping, up to about 15 per cent. of the total of Service men who are carried.
    Frankly, this is not as high a figure as I expected, but the fact is that this is very much a secondary rôle for Transport Command. The primary rôle is to provide air mobility for our forces, but we are looking at the question whether
    444
    we can further utilise Transport Command for air trooping purposes.
    As I have said, the primary rôle is to provide air mobility for our forces. The efficiency of operation of Transport Command was demonstrated on several occasions last year when troops and equipment were deployed swiftly in response to emergency situations in Cyprus, East Africa and British Guiana and reinforcements were also flown to Aden at the time of the Radfan operations and were and are to be flown to Malaysia in connection with the operations in Borneo.
    This brings me to the question of the R.A.F. in its overseas commands. Obviously, I cannot deal with all the R.A.F. overseas commands, but I might mention, in particular, the Middle East which was a particularly active area over the last year, and, of course, the Far East, where the main operational task of the R.A.F. has been to provide logistic and tactical air support for ground forces which have been engaged in defending Malaya against Indonesian aggression. The total airlift between Singapore and Borneo over 12 months amounted to well over 20,000 men and nearly 5 million lb. of freight. It is no exaggeration to say, both in respect of airlift to the area of operations and the use of tactical transport forces in the operational area itself, that without them these operations could not take place a all. Transport Command has maintained a very high level of efficiency in extremely difficult conditions.
    In Borneo and elsewhere there is extremely close and effective co-operation between all the Services and, in particular, between the R.A.F. and the Army. Those who have seen this at first-hand, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has done, are extremely impressed with the willing and active co-operation of the Services in this extremely difficult situation.
    Mr. A. Royle: Could the hon. Gentleman say something about unaccompanied tours by R.A.F. personnel at overseas stations? As he knows, in El Adem there are accompanied tours, with all the expense of providing accommodation for wives and families. In the Maldive Islands the tours are unaccompanied, with no such expenditure, and the morale of the troops is high. Are the Government

    445
    considering this problem? It is important and could involve considerable saving.
    Mr. Millan: We have it very much in mind. It is an extremely difficult problem. I know that unaccompanied tours, when, unfortunately, they are necessary, are not popular with the Service men concerned. If the hon. Member does not mind, I will deal with that when I wind up the debate, because anticipate that a number of hon. Members will want to raise similar points. I know that there is a good deal of feeling about it.
    Finally, I should like to deal with the question of the new aircraft equipment programme. First of all, it is not possible for me to say a great deal more about the TSR2 at this stage. The R.A.F. requirement for a highly sophisticated strike and reconnaissance aircraft still stands but, as the Committee has already been informed, the costs of the TSR2 have risen to a very alarming degree.
    The R and D costs, for example, have risen from about £90 million to nearly £300 million. The best estimate that we have, although even this estimate is many months out-of-date, of the cost of research, design and production is in the region of £750 million for 150 aircraft. Faced with this alarming cost it is prudent that the Government should he looking again at the whole question of TSR2 and the substitution of some other kind of aircraft for the rôle which we have in mind for this particular aircraft.
    This further review—and I can assure hon. Members, having worked a little on it myself, that it is an extremely thorough review—is still going on at present. We realise that there is bound to be a certain amount of uncertainty, particularly among workers involved on the TSR2 at present, until the decision is finally taken. We are, therefore, pressing ahead with the evaluation of the situation, the consideration of a possible alternative, the various questions of costs, time-scale and serviceability and the rest, as quickly as possible, and we hope to announce a decision in the reasonably near future, though I cannot be precise about it.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be fair in discus sing the TSR2, but my impression from his remarks is that we are going
    446
    through a softening-up process for an adverse decision. What the hon. Gentleman has told us about research and development costs we have been told before, but it would be interesting if he could elaborate about the capabilities and the way that the aircraft has performed even since the investigation started some weeks ago.
    Mr. Millan: All this is being taken into account. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should imagine that it is a softening-up process to point out that this aircraft is extremely expensive. No one disputes that this aircraft will cost £750 million—perhaps even more. This is not a softening-up process; this is giving the facts.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is it not fair to add that if it is cancelled none of the £300 million research and development bill will be recovered?
    Mr. Millan: That is not true. Research and development is still going on at the moment. Without disclosing the figures, within the £300 million there is a large amount of money to be spent on research and development. Therefore, it is not a question of giving up the whole of the £300 million.
    I will not tell the hon. Member what the exact figure is. I hope very much, and I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees, that when the whole thing is done we shall be able to give considerably more financial information. It is not £300 million. I agree very much with the sentiment which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has expressed on a number of other occasions, that we should have more information about these things.
    To turn from the TSR2 to the question of Hunter replacement and the decision of the previous Administration to develop the P1154, I want to say something about the P1154 and the decision which the Government took to cancel it. It is not in dispute—I do not think that it ever has been—that the P1154 would have been an excellent aircraft, but I think that the Committee might well note the tense "would have been". It is not in existence at the moment. Part of the trouble was that it was not to be in existence for a considerable number of years yet. As well as the time-scale for deliveries we also,

    447
    of course, had to take account of the cost of the project.
    The estimated research and development and production costs of the P1154 had continually risen over the last three years. Research and development costs had trebled and yet this was still at a very early stage of development. All our experience, unfortunately, led us to believe that the escalation in costs would continue.
    But, of course, it was not just a question of cost and I hope that the Committee will understand this. It was also a question of time-scale. The P1154 was still at least six years away from squadron service and it would have been—and that is assuming, again, that there would have been no further delay in development—about eight years before all our squadrons were re-equipped with this aircraft.
    Yet the P1154 was supposed to replace the Hunter, which entered service as long ago as 1954 and which is now ageing fast. Any one who has seen Hunters at close quarters knows that this is, unfortunately, true. The Hunter is an excellent aircraft, with good service behind it, but it is old and it is no kind of match for any potential or existing supersonic opponents. On military grounds, therefore, quite apart from financial considerations, we were compelled to reject the P1154.
    Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman talks about escalating costs, particularly in respect of research and development. Is he being completely fair to the Committee and the country? Is not he aware that the requirements are changing and that what the country gets, as a result of the escalating costs, is very often a quite different and very much better aircraft at the end of the day?
    Mr. Millan: That, unfortunately, is not true. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that costs keep going up because the Air Staff continually increases and improves requirements. That just is not true, and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone will be able to confirm me in saying so. That is not the basic reason for the escalation of costs. They have escalated even on the basis of operational requirements which have not been altered.
    448
    Faced with the position that the P1154 was unacceptable, we had to look for alternative aircraft and we have decided, as the Committee knows, on a mixture of the American Phantom and the British Kestrel, the P1127. The Phantom, as everyone agrees, is an excellent aircraft. I have seen nothing in the recent controversies about the decision that suggests that it is not excellent. It is excellent in the air defence rôle, has an extremely good attack capability and by the time we receive it further improvements will have been incorporated.
    The Phantom will be superior to anything similar in service in the world today and, of course, the last Government admitted that when they decided to buy it for the Navy. If the Phantom has a fault at all—and this is not, indeed, a fault in the true sense—it is not the most suitable aircraft for providing really close support for the Army. Here, of course, the P1127 meets the need because it has V./S.T.O.L. characteristics.
    Some hon. Members opposite—and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone has been party to this—have been making irresponsible statements about the P1127 being some kind of a toy which is not really a military aircraft at all. It is admitted, and I have no difficulty in admitting, that, as it stands at the moment, it is not a satisfactory military aircraft for the requirements we have. But then it was never meant to be. It is a tripartite evaluation aircraft and it is extremely successful from that point of view. Of course, it will require a considerable amount of development, but we are confident that it can be developed into an extremely effective aircraft by the end of the decade. It can be put into squadron service then as an extremely good fighting weapon which is able to operate from forward strips in close support of the Army and to deliver a considerable punch from a selection of armaments—air to ground rockets, guns, bombs and other weapons.
    There is another aspect of it that I would mention. There are quite good export prospects for the P1127 and this, unfortunately, has not been true of other military aircraft that we have developed over the last decade. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he held his talks with the Federal

    449
    German Chancellor the other day, included the question of the export of the P1127 and, obviously, we are at an extremely early stage. But I say that there are better export prospects for the P1127 than there were for the P1154 or other aircraft that the Government have discontinued.
    Mr. A. Royle: I am a little puzzled. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the P1154 would not be ready for service until 1971, in about six years. Now he says that the aircraft chosen, the P1127, will not be ready for five years, until 1970. There seems to be little difference between the two in time-scale.
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Phantom will be ready long before that. We did not replace the P1154 by the P1127. We are replacing it with a combination of the Phantom and the P1127 and the Phantom will be available before the P1127.
    Mr. Royle: What about the ground support?
    Mr. Millan: The Phantom is not completely incapable of giving close support to the Army. I simply say that the P1127 is better from that point of view.
    Mr. Julian Amery: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to introduce the Phantom with the Spey engine into squadron service?
    Mr. Millan: I cannot give an exact date at the moment, because the negotiations with the Americans, particularly for the installation of the Spey engine, are still going on. But it will be long before the P1154 would have been available as the Hunter replacement. We are thinking in terms of 1967–68 rather than the early 1970s, which would have been the case with the P1154.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: What sort of forecast of escalating cost has the hon. Gentleman made in the case of the P1127?
    Mr. Millan: It is at a very early stage of development. We are calculating what it will cost for the developed version. It is bad enough having to calculate escalating cost when the project is going on without having to do so right at the beginning, when we have only just decided to develop the aircraft. But we
    450
    have every intention of seeing that the cost scale we have laid down for the P1127 is adhered to over the next few years; and if we manage to do that it will be something that the last Government did not do either with the P1154 or with any other aircraft.
    There is now a greater cost consciousness not only in the Defence Department and the Ministry of Aviation, but also throughout the aircraft industry, because the industry understands that it is dealing with a Government who will not allow a repetition of the disastrous escalations of cost experienced over the last few years, particularly in respect of projects which we have had to cancel.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Could the hon. Gentleman explain a point on which he has left us dangling in mid-air? He has dropped a broad hint that the Prime Minister has been able to interest the West German Government in the P1127. That is an extremely important statement, which has just been, as it were, pushed to the side. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to be very careful about this, but I would like to know whether he could give us any further reason why the Germans might prefer the P1127 to the other project that they were just as interested in until it was cancelled?
    Mr. Millan: Because it will be a jolly sight cheaper and will be available sooner. It is not correct of the hon. Gentleman to sugest that the Germans have just become interested in the P1127 because, of course, West Germany was one of the three nations involved in the tripartite evaluation. There is thus a basic interest already. The Germans know some of the capabilities of the present aircraft and something of what we intend to do in developing it over the next few years.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
    Mr. Millan: I have spoken for a very long time and I have been interrupted quite a lot. I must say something about the C130. I see that that meets with general assent, at least on the Front Bench opposite.
    I want now to say something about the Hastings/Beverley replacement, a medium-range, transport aircraft, for

    451
    which the previous Government had planned to use the HS681 which has been cancelled, the present Government deciding, instead, to buy the United States C130. Since this decision has been criticised in more exaggerated, extravagant and inaccurate terms than any other decision which the Government have made about aircraft, I should like to say one or two things about it and to give one or two facts about the C130 and the background to the decision to go for it instead of the HS681.
    The firm operational requirement for the Hastings/Beverley replacement was first issued by the previous Government in 1961, and it was then intended that the new aircraft would be in operation by 1968, or even earlier. In fact, about three years elapsed from the date of the operational requirement until the issue of the firm requirement and the decision to go for the full development of the HS681. In that period, the estimated R and D costs had doubled and the unit costs had also greatly increased. Even worse than that, it had become clear that the HS681 could not be in full service before 1971 or 1972, and even then it would have started life without its short take-off characteristics. It was true of the HS681 as of the P1154—that it was not just a matter of costs alone, although they were disastrous enough, but also the time scale. It was, therefore, impossible for the Government to proceed with the HS681.
    We decided to go for the American C130E. There has been a good deal of loose talk about this being an obsolete aircraft, and I want to give some of the facts about it. First, the version of the C130E which the R.A.F. will be taking will be the same as that now being introduced by the United States Air Force. One of the troubles has been that there are different versions of the C130, but the R.A.F. will be getting the same as the new and improved version which the United States Air Force is to introduce as from next month, not the other version of the C130 which has been in operation in the United States for about—
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop rose—
    Mr. Millan: I shall give way at the end of the sentence.
    452
    It is not the same aircraft as that which is in operation with the United States Air Force at the moment, but is the improved developed version which is only now coming into operation in the United States.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That statement presumably means that for the first time the Government have announced a decision to take this aircraft with American rather than British engines.
    Mr. Millan: No, it does not mean that. If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to finish, I was about to say that it still has to be decided whether we shall take the C130E with the present American engines, which are the Allison J15 engines, or to go for the Rolls-Royce Tyne engines, and this decision is being evaluated. The Rolls-Royce Tyne engine is also extremely effective and there would be no question of reducing the capability of the C130E by the installation of the Tyne as compared with the Allison.
    Mr. McMaster: Would it have a short take-off?
    Mr. Millan: It will not have the very short takeoff characteristics of the HS681, but we have never pretended that it would. It does not need a concrete runway and can take off from a graded earth surface. We have made a careful analysis of all the available air strips in various parts of the world where we are likely to operate with the C130E and we have concluded that in most instances it could operation within 100 nautical miles of the scene of any likely ground operations.
    Thus, the absence of a S.T.O.L. capability is not a serious deficiency in present circumstances. Obviously, other things being equal, one would want to go for a short takeoff capability, but other things are not equal. As the Prime Minister pointed out, the HS681 cost three times as much as the C130E, so that it is unequal in that respect for a start.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman said that the type of engine for the C130E had not yet been decided. Can he confirm the information, which I have received this week, that if Her Majesty's Government insist, as we hope they will, on the Rolls-Royce engine for this aircraft, there will be an additional charge of 500,000 dollars to cover the modification of the engine installation?
    Mr. Millan: That is not accurate information. The whole thing is being evaluated at the moment, but I want to say quite frankly to the Committee that taking an American aircraft and putting British parts into it must mean some cost penalty. This is also true of the Phantom. In some cases it can be serious and in others less serious, but there is obviously a cost penalty once one starts "mucking about" with any aircraft.
    The fact is that the C130E, from every point of view, is a perfectly adequate aircraft for the kind of tasks which the R.A.F. wants it to do, and as it is already in service with the U.S.A.F. we shall not have the same difficulties about teething troubles and will be able to get a much quicker and concentrated build-up because of the large American production line. The C130E—and this may dispose of some of the arguments about its being obsolete—is the same type of aircraft as has been ordered by the Australians and New Zealanders and in many situations this would be an extremely useful advantage.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
    Mr. Millan: I cannot give way any more. I shall be winding up the debate and shall be pleased to answer questions then.
    To sum up the aircraft programme, under the plans of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the R.A.F. would soon have been trying to fly and maintain obsolete, vulnerable aircraft right at the end of their lives and there would have been a fantastic expenditure on replacements bunched in the years 1970 to 1974. No right hon. Gentleman opposite who was in the previous Government and knows the facts has ever disputed that there would have been this bunching of expenditure at the end of this decade.
    As it is, with the P1127, the Phantom and the C130E, not forgetting the Comet replacement for the Shackleton, the R.A.F. will be receiving first-class aircraft more than adequate for the tasks it will be, called upon to perform, and will be receiving them in time and at a cost the nation can afford.
    It is a grave disservice to the R.A.F. to suggest, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been suggesting over the past few weeks, that the R.A.F. has been palmed
    454
    off with second-class, inadequate aircraft. That is not so and that kind of thing causes a considerable amount of offence within the R.A.F. where the people who have to fly the aircraft know the situation a good deal more intimately, and from personal experience, than hon. Members opposite.
    In many respects the R.A.F. is in excellent shape. I have already mentioned the very satisfactory recruitment figures and some of the Government's plans for equipment. When the defence review now going on is complete, the essential tasks of the Service over the next decade will be clearly defined. Over the last 10 years, the R.A.F. has suffered more than anything else from the frequent changes of policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite and, particularly in the last few years, from indecision and from delays in making decisions of any sort.
    What the R.A.F. requires more than anything else is a precise statement of the job it is expected to do set in the context of a clear worldwide defence policy and a knowledge of the kind of weapons and aircraft it will have to do the job. That is the Government's task. That is what we are working on, and we are pursuing it with every possible vigour.
    May I end on a note with which hon. Members on both sides will agree. This year is the 25th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. We all have special reason to feel proud of and grateful to the R.A.F. To repeat what I said at the beginning, the same spirit and high standard which was a feature of the R.A.F. in 1940 is still a feature of the R.A.F. in 1965. It is the job of the Government to harness this spirit and high standards of efficiency to see that the Service has the weapons and equipment which will enable it to do the job which we place on it. This, in sum, is what the Government are pledged to do.
    5.21 p.m.
    Sir John Eden: I am sure that the Committee will wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the admirably lucid, fluent and competent manner in which he presented the Estimates. Those of us who have had anything to do with the R.A.F. in years past, in whatever capacity, will not be

    455
    surprised by his references to the Service or at his feeling of pride in taking over his present responsibilities. He has a heavy day before him. As he explained, owing to the fact that his titular master is in another place, he will be winding up the debate tonight. I hope that he will be able to deal with the questions which, no doubt, my hon. Friends will wish to raise, primarily as a result of his speech.
    May I make a general comment on what the Under-Secretary of State said. It sounded a little like the first paragraph of the Defence White Paper. He blamed the previous Administration for lack of policy decisions about the rôle, size and shape of the R.A.F., but offered no solutions of his own. Nor did he indicate the Government's views on these major questions or say whether they have changed in any sense. He told us very little which was new. He said very little which we did not know already from the previous debates. I should have thought that, in view of the upheavals which have been caused in the R.A.F. by the cancellation of some of the projects, we would have had a little more information and justification for those decisions from the Government.
    This debate primarily is about money. As the Under-Secretary of State said, we are concerned with the tidy sum of £562 million. In dealing with sums of this magnitude, obviously all of us must be concerned to see that, in so far as it lies within our power, we get value for the money which we shall be voting this evening. As the hon. Gentleman indicated in the account which he gave of the wide variety of tasks which the R.A.F. is called upon to discharge, there is very little room for manoeuvre. The pay and conditions must he as good as we can make them. The hon. Gentleman said that about 46 per cent. of the present Estimate is in respect of personnel. The Deputy Secretary of State made a valid comment in this Committee on Monday when he indicated how much of the expenditure on the defence Estimates would fall on other Votes, social services and other departmental requirements if our defence forces were not of the size and strength that they are.
    There is another reason why there is comparatively little room for manoeuvre,
    456
    even when contemplating a sum of this magnitude. As long as Britain's interests and obligations are world-wide—and that will continue to be the case for years—there will always be a need for overseas bases, overseas supply depots and refuelling posts. We cannot simply contract out of these responsibilities, close down these overseas bases, and draw in our horns as though we were a snail content to live in the security of our shell.
    It is our duty to question, probe and seek information. Of necessity, these questions will be somewhat superficial. Since the Government have made great point in beating Mr. McNamara's drum about giving a lot of information, I think that they could have done better than this, even in the short time available to them. After thirteen years in opposition and of studying these things, they keep to the same old pattern. These are the people who year after year pestered the then Government for not giving sufficient information to hon. Members. Now, we have no information, and it is virtually impossible to find one's way through these complex Estimates. I speak as one who served for a number of years on Estimates Sub-Committee G where we had some training in these matters. We must consider this question very seriously. The Government must give a great deal more information to the Committee in the years ahead, should they have the chance to do so, and make sure that it is factually presented in a clear-cut and readily understandable manner.
    There are other reasons why there is little room for manoeuvre, but these no doubt will be deployed by my hon. Friends.
    I welcome the effort being made to try to reduce costs and to make economies. The Under-Secretary of State was right when he said how keen the Service is to introduce cost-saving practices and to reduce expenditure wherever possible. One instance of this lies in logistic and supply services where the cost increasingly is being shared between the three arms of the defence forces. A similar example is in the organisation of health facilities, hospitals and education. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) will deal with these points at greater length and will have a number of questions to put to the hon. Gentleman which I hope he will be able to answer.

    457
    I welcome the new procedures to examine cost effectiveness and the functional costing proposals which have logically grown out of the move made by the previous Government to centralise the defence organisation. This will help to give a truer picture of the nature of these expenditures and must lead to the elimination of unnecessary expenditure which certainly takes place in any vast arganisation such as this.
    We welcome, naturally, the establishment at Byfleet of the Defence Operational Analysis Centre, but I want to give word of warning. The hon. Gentleman spoke about computers. They are complex machines. Computers, slide-rules and the gamut of new techniques for analysis and evaluation are fine and necessary. But they must be properly used and the answers which they give must be properly evaluated. They cannot do away all together with the need for clear-cut thinking and decision by those for whom these instruments provide the information. They must not become the masters.
    One thing which I fear is that some of the processes which are being introduced, necessary though they are for the purpose of achieving economies and avoiding unnecessary expenditure, could conceivably become obstacles to the development of desirable and necessary weapon systems or might even introduce elements of delay which would hold up these necessary processes. At least, the people who man the centres, the experts in charge of the proceedings, the equivalent, presumably, of Mr. McNamara's "whizz-kids", must not overrule the considered judgment and professional expertise of the heads of Services.
    In any event, the heads of Services are in danger—too much, I think—of being swallowed up in the central machine. They are not responsible for the policy decisions of the Government. We must try to keep them as far outside politics as possible. There has been a tendency, I recognise, on both sides of the Committee, to call them in aid whenever it has been desirable to do so and to quote them as supporting the particular views of the Minister at the time. Since I have been holding this responsibility from the Opposition side, I have found that many friends, heads of commands in the Royal Air Force, are taboo, almost
    458
    unapproachable people; they seem to go into purdah. That is carrying diffidence and respect towards the political masters a little bit too far. I will not stress the point beyond saying that they are serving officers and not civil servants. Their job is fighting. The job of the Royal Air Force is to fight.
    Our Air Force exists to defend the country, to protect it from the threat of nuclear attack, to provide air cover and close support for the other two Services and to ensure the maximum degree of mobility for the forces as a whole. In short, wherever speed, flexibility and striking power are essential, the Royal Air Force must be ready to act in a host of different ways and to meet a wide variety of demands.
    To discharge those tasks effectively in the future, the Royal Air Force will inevitably need new, increasingly complex, and, therefore, more costly equipment. The art of defence is growing the whole time. Therefore, the power of penetration must grow with it. The task of the planners is to foresee the developments in defence and to forestall them with new developments in attack.
    I welcome, therefore, the establishment of the Operational Requirements Committee. I am sure that it will help a great deal in avoiding duplication and in assessing the requirements of the Service. I hope, however, that this Committee will not take too short-term an outlook, because weapons systems, as the Minister well knows, take many years to develop and, therefore, there is a great need always to anticipate the nature of the job which the Service will be called upon to perform several years, if not a decade or more, in advance of the time of the fixing of the operational requirement.
    It was because they clearly foresaw the great strides that will be taken in the techniques of defence that the last Government opted for even more advanced systems of attack. That was why the decision was taken to go ahead with the HS681, the P1154 and the TSR2. These weapons systems and aircraft have been attacked and pilloried by hon. Members opposite, not merely since they came into power, but long before. They attacked them when they were in Opposition, as they have done since the election, for being too expensive. But they are extremely complex. Hon.

    459
    Members opposite have attacked them for being too sophisticated, but so will be the nature of the operations which they will be called upon to fulfil. An extremely sophisticated requirement must lead to the development of extremely sophisticated machinery, which inevitably will be costly. Hon. Members opposite delude themselves if they imagine that they can find substantial savings in the equipment required by the Royal Air Force to meet the operational task which it will be called upon to discharge and, at the same time, ensure an efficient fighting Service.
    As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force knows, the HS681 was designed as a tactical jet transport. It would have had outstanding short-field performance and carried a heavy payload. It was due, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the 1970 time-scale. I merely interject that we do not want to be too fixed by any particular year when forecasting the time when an aircraft is coming into service. I do not intend to lecture, but I think that it would be better in future to talk about a time-scale covering a period of years, because this is much more pertinent to the nature of the problems that these aircraft are designed to meet.
    The HS681 would have lent itself readily to conversion to vertical take-off and landing capacity. This meant that it had a considerable development capacity. This type of development was extremely important, because the purpose of the aircraft would have been to give transport support, spares support and logistics support to v.t.o. fighter aircraft such as the P1154. This we have lost. Whilst the Under-Secretary understandably talks about bonus in terms of cost, what he has not emphasised is the deficit incurred in performance. It is easy to get something cheaper if the requirement is down-graded, and that is what the Government have done.
    The large freight hold of the HS681 was specifically designed to accommodate the bulk of army vehicles and equipment. Inevitably, I am certain, within the time scale for which this aircraft was designed, in spite of, if not because of, the fact the Government have now ordered the Hercules, the Royal Air Force will be requiring a jet transport with very short
    460
    field capabilities, if not with v.t.o. capacity.
    It was the Deputy Secretary of State and Minister of Defence for the Army who last year, when debating the Air Estimates on 1st March, wagged a finger at my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who had introduced the Estimates and referring to the HS681 said:
    "I hope that it will not be another six years before we get this welcome addition to our transport capability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1161.]
    Now, the right hon. Gentleman has cancelled it. In its place he and his colleagues have ordered the Hercules, the C130E, an aircraft which has been studied time after time and has in each case been rejected as not being suitable for the requirements of the Royal Air Force. This is the only point at which the hon. Gentleman gave us any new information. He said that this was not the C130E as such. It is a newly-developed version of it.
    There are an awful lot of Hercules aircraft. I have a list of some of them. All I know is that the original Hercules type from which this version has been stretched was the result of a specification prepared by the United States Air Force Tactical Air Command in 1951. The C130E is an extended range version of the C130B, which first flew in 1958. Incidentally, ten of the C130B version were delivered to the Indonesian Air Force and seven to the South African Air Force, so we are in very good company thanks to the Government's decision.
    The C130E version first flew in 1961 and deliveries to the United States Air Force first began in April, 1962. This aircraft, therefore, is not just coming into service. The hon. Gentleman tells us, however, that this aircraft which we are to have is not, in fact, the C130E. Does it have a different label attached to it? It will be very confusing if we talk about a stepped-up version of the C130E and have to refer to it constantly as the C130E when it is something different. It is just as well to get the point clear. If the hon. Gentleman can return to it in his winding-up speech, it would be helpful if he were to tell us in what respects—in range and payload, for example—the new version differs from the C130E, whose performance figures we have.
    Mr. Lubbock: How can the Minister say any thing about the capabilities of the C130E when he has told us this afternoon that he does not even know what engines will be put into it?
    Sir J. Eden: I was coming to that. I was referring, of course, to the C130E which is in service with the United States Air Force. But coming to the point which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has just mentioned, why has no decision been made about the engine? What is it that is holding up the right hon. Gentleman? Was not this decision taken before the original agreement was signed? This is what I find extremely difficult, what I think the whole Committee finds difficult, to understand. Are we being led to believe that the Secretary of State for Defence announced a decision to purchase this and other aircraft before the technical details had been arranged? I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said in an intervention earlier on, that this must give rise to a great cleat of doubt not only as to cost, whether there are any cost penalties imposed on us by Lockheed's if we do not take the aircraft exactly as it now stands, but also as to performance and as to the time scale. Will the hon. Gentleman give us more information? What number is the R.A.F. to have? What is the anticipated cost of each aircraft? Are we or are we not going to get an early decision on the type of engine which will be fitted to our version of the C130?
    Again, I noted that, perhaps understandably, the hon. Gentleman said nothing about the Belfast. But why not? Surely the R.A.F. will have considered the potentiality of the Belfast in this regard. In most of its performance data it is equal or superior to the Hercules, and its carrying capacity is greater and, therefore, a smaller number of that aircraft would have been required.
    Turning to the P1154, I regard the cancellation of this project as a tragedy. It is a tragedy for the aircraft industry, and it is a tragedy also for the Royal Air Force. It would have put the Royal Air Force streets ahead of any other air force in the world. We have, as a result of this decision, in one blow lost years of development of this new technique, in which we led the field, and it has resulted in the dispersal of the world's most
    462
    famous design team under Sir Sydney Camm, and once men like these men leave the area in which they have been working it will never be possible to bring them together again.
    Of course, I and every hon. Member on this side of the Committee wish the P1127 every possible success. The hon. Gentleman said that it is going to be ready in 1970 and that the 1154 would have been ready in 1971. Even making an allowance about the exact year, even allowing that it would have been 1972, there is no justification here for the time gap argument which the Government have been pressing on us about the P1154. Here again the argument, apparently, is about cost, but the P1127 is now subsonic. It is not designed, or equipped even, to carry any weapons system. It will probably have to be stretched. If it is going to be upgraded into a supersonic version, how will it ultimately differ from what the P1154 would have been in the first instance? What will be the extra consequences or penalties of this development, which must take place, of the P1127 in terms of cost and in terms of time scale and in terms of delay? Will not this completely erode the so-called gap to which the hon. Gentleman referred?
    Naturally, we hope for overseas sales of this aircraft, and we would look automatically not only to Germany but to the United States of America as being customers for this particular aircraft—
    Sir A. V. Harvey: What a hope now.
    Sir J. Eden: —because, as the hon. Gentleman said, they have been partners with us in the tripartite evaluation of this technique. I agree very much with the views which were expressed last year in this Committee, that we really must press the United States of America to buy British aircraft, as well as to sell American aircraft to this country.
    This was put strongly by the Deputy Secretary of State last year, when he said:
    "It was a great pity … that before arranging to buy United States aircraft we did not make arrangements of a bilateral character whereby America would buy, or at least contribute to the development of, aircraft here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1162.]
    I absolutely agree with that sentiment, and I send it back to the right hon.

    463
    Gentleman with interest. If he held those views then, he had every reason to make and he should have made every possible effort to ensure that we got some bilateral agreement out of the United States of America on this question before jeopardising the lead we had, and have had for so many years, in vertical takeoff capacity, and taking the Phantom from the United States industry.
    Turning to Phantoms, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in making it quite clear that they are fine aircraft. They are. They are wonderful aircraft, capable of speeds perhaps greater than Mach 2. They were the aircraft which the Paymaster-General last year described as wonderful but essentially interim aircraft. If this is an interim aircraft, then we shall want to know exactly what the long-term replacement of this is to be when it comes into service. What version of Phantom II is the R.A.F. to get? The hon. Gentleman referred to the Hercules C130E. He said it was not the C130E, that it was something better than the C130E, but he did not specify what type of Phantom II we were going to get—and there are a lot of Phantom IIs available in different versions. Will this be the RF4C version? Is this to be the reconnaissance version? Or is it going to be a fighter-bomber version? If it is a fighter-bomber version-and incidentally this will interest the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—if this is what we are going to get, it is capable of carrying 16,000 lb. of nuclear and conventional bombs. No doubt the hon. Member will support this decision of the Government.
    But what exactly is the version we are to have? What is the range of the aircraft? The range of the earlier version which I have mentioned is public knowledge. We would wish to know what is the range of this aircraft we are going to get. Is it the intention to equip it with the Spey engine similar to that with which the naval version is to be equipped? Incidentally, referring to the time scale, the hon. Gentleman said this would come completely into service—if I understood him aright, and I hope he will interrupt me if I am wrong—by 1967 or 1968.
    Mr. Millan: I said it would be coming into service. I did not make any commitment at all as to the total delivery date.
    Sir J. Eden: So we take it this one would come in about 1967 or 1968, but the remainder would come in some time later.
    This is the point I want to make here. We cannot, on the one hand, refer to the time scale, by specifying a year of entry into service of the first batch, for the benefit of the Government when introducing their own choice, and then attack the previous Administration by picking a particular year at which the whole lot would have been in service. There is a bit of juggling here of which the Committee needs to be aware. That is why I think it is much better to concentrate on the time scale rather than fix any particular year. On this point, the hon. Gentleman will know that the time scale of introduction of the Phantom with the Spey engine for the Navy is the latter part of 1968. So how we are going to get the R.A.F. version, perhaps with a Spey or perhaps without a Spey, before the naval version which was ordered before I shall be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Millan: So far as delivery rates are concerned, of course the Phantom will come in at a rate very much quicker than could have been possible with the P1154. Apart from anything else, they will be coming from a very much larger production line in the United States. One of our difficulties has been, even with British aircraft, arranging delivery periods at the rate of delivery. With the Phantom we shall get a better rate of delivery. In fact, the first will be roughly simultaneous with the production of the naval version.
    Sir J. Eden: I marvel at the way in which the hon. Gentleman can be quite so categorical when no decision has been taken yet about the engine to be fitted into this aircraft.
    Mr. Millan: I do not want to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but there is no doubt about the engine for the Phantom. It was announced by the Prime Minister, in the debate, I think, in December, or later. But the engine is to be the Spey engine. There is no doubt about that.
    Sir J. Eden: Will that be fitted here? These are points which perhaps the hon. Gentleman cannot answer completely. The fitting of new or different types of engines to this aircraft is bound to delay it entry into service, and this process is bound to erode the time gap, which is one of the principal charges which the Government have levied against the previous Administration.
    The hon. Gentleman has not told us what is to be the rôle of the Phantom when operating in conjunction with the P1127. Is this to be a ground attack aircraft? If so, what is the nature of its armoury? Is it going to have American weapons, or is it going to be equipped with the AS30, the air to surface missile? Can the hon. Gentleman give us some information about the numbers, about the cost, and about the time scale to which I have referred?
    I have emphasised the importance of getting more information about these aircraft, and I am sure that I carry the Committee with me in pressing for this. In doing so, I echo the words of the Minister of Defence for the Army, because last year he said:
    "What will be the size of the aircraft bill in future years? The orders have been placed, but we have been given no indication of the financial commitment involved. It is pointless having a. debate about the cost of the Air Force and being asked to approve Estimates unless we get this kind of information."—[OFFICLAL, REPORT, 3rd March, 1964, Vol. 690, cc. 1161–2.]
    This is the kind of information which the Committee ought to have, and indeed must have, if it is to judge fairly and properly, not only the amount of money involved in these Estimates, but whether we are getting value for money in terms of the efficiency of the Royal Air Force.
    I think that we are getting remarkably little information. Even when my hon. Friends and I table Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence to get this information we get what amounts to a virtual brush-off. We get no information from asking Questions. I think that the period of purdah is over. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends can now come out from behind their veils of discretion and give the Committee and the country a litle more information. It is important, not merely for our benefit, but for the benefit of the Services and the taxpayers of this country that the
    466
    Government should provide us with as much information as is possible within the limitations of security.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the gap, as I have done, and attacked the HS681 and the P1154 for coming into service too late, but it is always possible to prevent a gap. There is no merit in stopping a gap. It can be done by ordering more aircraft, and by shopping around and purchasing from other nations, as the Government are doing. Otherwise, there will always be a certain risk of a gap. It is not the present gap, or the gap which the Government are now apparently attempting to fill, which is the really worrying aspect of the matter. What I think is dangerous is that the Government's decision has been not so much to purchase interim aircraft, but to cancel the next generation of aircraft on which the future of the Royal Air Force depends, and it is the future with which my hon. Friends and I are concerned.
    That leads me, inevitably, to comment on the position in which the TSR2 finds itself, thanks to the inability of the Government to come to a decision. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have very little idea of what lies behind the initials TSR2. They have no idea how many years of imaginative planning and skilful design work have gone into this complex weapon system. The TSR2 was designed as long ago as 1958 with two specific rôles in mind—tactical strike with a wide range of weapons, and reconnaissance. The reconnaissance equipment is designed to be effective at all altitudes, and in any kind of weather. The aircraft is capable of high speed at very low altitudes. It has an automatic terrain following device which enables it to approach a target while keeping below the enemy's radar. Its performance is not matched by any other known aircraft in the world.
    The TSR2 would be of particular value in Europe, and it was designed primarily for this rôle. The central region of Europe is the danger spot in the N.A.T.O. defence system. Much has been made recently in our defence debates of the prospect of greater conflict in the Far East, and less in Europe, and I agree with that, but we should not underestimate the need to counter the strong threat of Soviet and satellite tactical air forces which are mounted in the central region of Europe.

    467
    This is where R.A.F. Germany plays a most important part. This section of the Royal Air Force is capable of a number of rôles—air defence, reconnaissance, conventional attack, and nuclear strike. Although it is tactical by nature, the Royal Air Force in Germany has this nuclear capability which makes it an integral part of the Western nuclear defence, and it is in this rôle perhaps more than in any other that the TSR2 would be of such great significance. This aircraft could also be used in the Far East, because it has built into it a long ferry range. It is capable of deep penetration, and it is easily maintained.
    Those are points worth emphasising, because the aircraft, together with all its equipment and weapons, has been designed as one complete unit. That is why the costs are particularly high. Every component part has been specifically designed for this aircraft, and the cost of the design of all these new techniques goes to the TSR2. This point is recognised in the Estimates, and it ought to be recognised openly by Government spokesmen in future, because we are getting an aircraft which is new from nose tip to tail in all its instruments and systems, and this naturally means a higher total cost.
    This is the weapon system of the future, and it was knowledge of this particular weapon system which caused the United States to rush through the construction of the TFX. The performance of the TSR2 at low levels will be infinitely superior to that of the TFX. That it is living up to its high expectations is clear from what the test pilot who has been controlling the development of this aircraft system and who has been in charge of the test flights had to say. Wing Commander Beamont has given the TSR2 the highest praise that it is possible for a test pilot to give a newly developed aircraft.
    There was a rather interesting news item in Flight of 4th March, 1965. It said:
    "Cancellation of Wing Commander Beamont's Barnwell Memorial Lecture on the TSR2 is understood to have been at the M.o.A's request. TSR2 tests have been very successful to date, but the Government does not seem anxious to publicise the fact."
    Why is there this conspiracy on the part of the Government against one of the
    468
    finest technological achievements of the aircraft industry? In presenting these Estimates to the Committee, and in talking about the future equipment of the R.A.F., why did not the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of giving the Committee specific and detailed information about the success of the TSR2? There is something very mysterious indeed about the attitude of the Government to this weapon system. Or perhaps it is not so mysterious. Perhaps, after all, they are concerned not so much with providing the necessary equipment as with playing politics with those instruments under development. This aircraft has been designed with future conflicts in mind. Those who drew up the original specification did a brilliant piece of work.
    I ask this question specifically, and I hope that the hon. Member will devote attention to it in winding up: has there been any change in the operational requirement since October? Has any such change been brought to the hon. Member's attention by the Air Staff, or anybody else in the Services, which now lead the Government to feel that the requirements out of which the TSR2 has been developed are now not necessarily so stringent and can be down-graded? What are the changes, if any, that have taken place since then? If there are no changes in the projected operational requirement for which this aircraft was specifically designed, the Government must come to a decision to back it and bring it into service as soon as possible.
    What matters with an aircraft of this type, as with the aircraft in the V-bomber force, is that it provides the fighting man with the certainty of a strike. The philosophy behind the TSR2 is the philosophy of "one sortie—one strike." This applies equally to the V-bomber force. What really matters there is the "bomb-on-target" capability of each aircraft. This led the previous Administration to upgrade the performance of the V-bomber. These bombers now have the advanced type of Blue Steel weapon. The V-bomber force as a whole—as we heard from the hon. Member—is equipped with the Mark II version of the V-bomber. They have low-level capability. Does not the hon. Member, if not his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, agree that here, in the V-bomber force, the Royal Air Force and the

    469
    defence forces of this country have the finest weapon to hand that it is possible to conceive of at this time?
    Will not he pay tribute to the work of those who serve in the V-bomber force and who spend long days and nights constantly at the ready manning this vital fleet of aircraft for the benefit of this country and Western defence as a whole? I cannot understand why the Secretary of State has decided—as apparently is the case—to split up the V-bomber force. He refers to the irrevocable assignment of part of the V-bomber force to the proposed Atlantic nuclear force. The other part he will assign to duties of a less arduous nature in the Far East. He is splitting up the V-bomber force, which is the very antithesis of the way in which a bomber force should be used. The great value of such a force is that it shall be concentrated where it is needed. For this purpose those who control our defences must retain control over its deployment, otherwise it ceases to have any value or merit for us.
    Can the Minister give us a little more information about the progress that is being made in bringing the Mark I V-bombers to service with SACEUR, in place of the Valiants? This decision should have been taken straight away. It is something that we could well do. These aircraft are available, and they would be appreciated in SACEUR, where the Valiants in the past have played a significant rôle..
    In the case of these aircraft, the TSR2, V-bombers or whatever they may be, survival and effectiveness are the keys. The prerequisite for new aircraft is that they should be capable of doing the job required. When we talk about value for money, I hope the Committee will recognise that the main value for money lies in the accomplishment of the rôle.. That is why we are pressing the Government to keep the TSR2. That is the decision we want the Government to take, because we fear the gap that is forming, not immediately but in the 1970s, for which this weapon system was primarily designed.
    I turn now to the question of the Shackleton replacement. We are grateful that this has been ordered from British industry, but how has this decision been
    470
    arrived at? What is the nature of the alteration which will have to take place to the Comet? Will the aircraft have the necessary hover capacity which our Coastal Command aircraft need? Will it be equipped with a by-pass engine? How long will this new development take? I do not wish in any sense to damn this aircraft, but it smells slightly of being political in nature. It appears to have been devised in order to provide work for a certain aircraft firm rather than to meet the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force. Why was the decision not taken to go for the Breguet Atlantique?
    Since the Government revised the decision on the Comet we have heard a lot about the need to co-operate with the French. I was glad to hear the announcement of the Secretary of State that in conjunction with the French Air Staff we are looking closely into the possibility of developing an advanced jet trainer and/or a two-seater fighter for naval or ground attack, with variable sweep. Perhaps the Minister can give the Committee more information about this later on.
    Mr. Millan: It seems odd that the hon. Member is now complaining that in this case we have bought a British aircraft—the Comet. He apparently thinks that we should have bought a foreign aircraft. The previous complaint has been that we have been buying foreign aircraft instead of British. I do not know what the hon. Member wants, unless it is to complain about every decision the Government have taken.
    Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member misunderstands my point. What I have been complaining about throughout is the persistent downgrading of the operational requirement, for which the Government have been responsible. It was the down-grading of the operational requirement which led them to accept the P1127 instead of the P1154, the Hercules instead of the 681, and this type of aircraft instead of the type to which I was referring previously, namely, the Breguet Atlantique. That is my only point in that connection.
    I will leave references to Transport Command to be made later on by my hon. Friends. I would only emphasise that it is desperately important for us

    471
    to maintain our capacity to meet the future requirement for rapid deployment, speedy reinforcement and logistical support of our forces.
    The hon. Member referred to the fall in the number of men coming into the Service. He said that this was planned, in spite of the strain which the new Borneo emergency has placed upon them. Is there any difficulty in getting pilots into the Service? I know that we are getting the right quality, but at that right quality—which should not be debased under any circumstances—are we getting the number of pilots we require?
    On recruitment generally, there is a matter which the Government must decide upon very early. In the retired pay and pensions of officers and men who have already left the Service there are far too many codes in being at present. Another code is due to be introduced at any moment. Surely, if the Government are not able to go the whole way towards parity, at least they could bring all the preceding codes up to the 1956 code level. I hope that we shall have some indication of what is in the Government's mind before very long on the question of retired pay.
    The whole Committee will welcome the establishment of the Templer Committee, which includes a most distinguished airman, Sir Dennis Barnett, who has served the country well already in a number of notable capacities. This important Committee is investigating the economic use of air power. This is probably the most important decision which has been taken and, perhaps more than any other, will contribute to a more efficient use of air weapons.
    I am glad the Government have made clear that they are not going to amalgamate the three Services completely and that they will preserve the separate identity of each one. This clearly indicates that there is a great future ahead for the youngest of the three Services.
    I am sure I speak for the whole Committee, and indeed for all taxpayers, when I say to the men and women of the Royal Air Force, "Though the cost may run into many millions, as it does, we readily vote you the sum, knowing that you will continue honourably and effectively to discharge your tasks in the interests of the country and in the cause
    472
    of peace". That is what the Royal Air Force stands for. The manner in which they have discharged these rôles in the recent past has met with the admiration of every hon. Member in the Committee. We look to the Government to continue to support them and provide them with the weapons systems which their task requires.
    6.11 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I join with the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Sir J. Eden) in the congratulations he extended to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force. During the last 15 years I have taken part in many debates on the Air Estimates. We have had a succession of Service Ministers who read out the Service brief composed by someone in the Air Ministry. These Ministers were very agreeable people, but they always seemed to be of the same type. Now we have a Minister who does not fit into that type at all, because by profession he is a chartered accountant. I have always believed that a chartered accountant was exactly the sort of person to be allowed into the Air Ministry in order to examine its complicated and interesting finances.
    In the speech of the Minister we had a mixture of brief from the Air Ministry and undertones and footnotes from the experienced chartered accountant. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West asked for more information. I have been asking for more information about Air Estimates for an incredible number of years. I always thought that the most pained expression to come across the face of a Minister appeared when I asked the indecent and obscene question, "What does this thing cost?"
    On this occasion we have been given far more information about what the various aircraft cost than we have ever had before. I hope that the Minister, when presenting the case for his Ministry, will not forget that there is also the need for the chartered accountant's mind.
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member must have been paying more attention to the speech of the Minister than I was, because I did not hear the Minister mention the cost of a single aircraft. Can the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) remind us of which aircraft he is speaking?
    Mr. Hughes: Certainly, I am talking about the TSR2, and I am quite sure that had the hon. Gentleman been here he would have remembered the astronomical figure to which the cost was likely to jump by the time the aircraft was completed—of £750 million—I repeat, £750 million.
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman did say something about the ultimate cost of the TSR2, which is highly problematical at the moment. But he did not say anything in relation to the Estimates before the Committee or how much was the cost of the individual aircraft which we are paying for out of this Vote.
    Mr. Hughes: The case against the Government has been that they are going to abandon the TSR2. The figure of £750 million was given. I work out that the aircraft will cost £1 million each. That brings the matter down to earth. If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) wants more information, I should be delighted to join with him. I want to know the cost of the Phantom and the cost of everything else. It would be a good thing if whenever a spokesman for the Air Ministry mentioned any kind of aircraft he also said exactly what the aircraft cost. Every reference to the Phantom, the Vulcan or the TSR2 should be followed in brackets, with the cost, in hard cash.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member referred to the development costs of the TSR2, which the Minister spoke about as being somewhere about £300 million for a possible order—£750 million for 144 aeroplanes. He did not say that if the Government cancel the order now, there will be cancellation charges of approximately £150 million, bringing the figure to £450 million. They are going to buy a number of American TFX aircraft. Where is the saving?
    Mr. Hughes: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has said. It would be a good thing if the cancellation costs were incurred and the loss cut down. The hon. Gentleman says that we should take the American aircraft into account. If he is objecting to the American aircraft, I agree with him. I hope that he will pursue that point, but that he will not be too anti-American in the process.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I will do that.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister used an interesting phrase which I have never heard used before in a debate on the Air Estimates. It could have come only from a chartered accountant. He referred to "cost consciousness". The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West would never have used that term. In his sky the stratosphere is the limit and he is incorrigibly romantic. He is not the sort of person who should be allowed within a thousand miles of the Air Ministry.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James McInnes): Order. I must ask the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to confine himself to the Estimates and not refer to the personality of the Minister.
    Mr. Hughes: I do not know why every Chairman who takes the Chair during a debate on the Air Estimates is given an awful warning to keep an eye on the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, to see that he does not stray from the Estimates.
    The Temporary Chairman: I can assure the hon. Member that no such warning has been issued to me, and I know the hon. Member for South Ayrshire too well for him to need such a warning.
    Mr. Hughes: I am trying to deal with the cost of the Royal Air Force. I could seek your affection, Mr. McInnes, by translating all this about the cost of aircraft into the cost of housing, but, out of consideration for you, I will refrain.
    In considering these Estimates we must take into consideration the costs and the possibility of them escalating according to the calculations of the Minister. If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West had been at the Ministry the value of the £ would have gone down to about 3s. 4d. I have given these warnings for a number of years. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has listened to them for years;—
    Sir A. V. Harvey: For 10 years.
    Mr. Hughes: No, for 15 years.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: For 20 years.
    Mr. Hughes: I am going back only 10 years. When we were discussing

    475
    the Air Estimates in 1954, I made a statement, and when I looked it up I was surprised at what a good prophet I had been. I said in the debate on 16th March, 1954:
    "I dissent completely from the idea that we must embark on finding the men and the money for this very big bomber force, especially at a time when it is generally assumed that if … these bombers have to go into action, they would be on the side of the United States of America."
    I went on to say:
    "I fail to see why this small country, facing a very dangerous and difficult economic situation"—
    this was in 1954—
    "should have to embark upon this grandiose expenditure of a very large amount of our national resources, taking 280,000 of our men, when the programme will be in addition to all the bombers which presumably are gathered together in the American bombing bases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 313.]
    That is precisely my criticism of the Estimates today. The economic situation of this country is worse, yet the cost of the Estimates has gone up. But my exhortations have passed unnoticed, as they usually do. The present economic situation, as the Minister has said, has resulted in the Government having to look at the Estimates of the previous Government and cut them by approximately £56 million. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Estimates?"] The previous Government's programme. Yet we still find a substantial increase in the Estimates. In these Estimates—
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that this shows what a chartered accountant does in the Air Ministry—he arranges to cut the expenditure, but it still increases.
    Mr. Hughes: What an intelligent chartered accountant does when he sees that things are going wrong is to wind up the concern. That is exactly what I want to do.
    We have heard about the TSR2 and about its wonderful achievements and we are pressed to proceed with it—"Never mind the costs. Go on and spend and let them escalate until this country is bankrupt." But what would actually happen if the TSR2 went into action? I should imagine that it would be something like this. Suppose that the TSR2 is
    476
    ordered to go into action to bomb a target in the U.S.S.R. Ministers—especially the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser)—used to tell us in these debates, "We have now reached the stage at which one of these pilots can get into an aircraft in four minutes, where it used to take him four and a half."
    I always tried to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, and ask what would happen to the TSR2, travelling at a very fast speed over the treetops, when it reaches its objective and drops its nuclear weapon. The bomb lands on some city like Moscow or Leningrad, which goes up in smoke. But what is Russia doing at the time? If the TSR2 pilot is able to listen in on his radio and is still in contact with the base at home—he must be, otherwise it will not be a good aircraft—he will find that signals from the base suddenly lapse into silence because the base has been destroyed by something else coming through—probably the Russian version of the TSR2. The base would be wiped out, and not only the base, but the R.A.F. and the country, which is supposed to be defended.
    I am amazed to see these realities ignored. I do not know what would happen to that TSR2 if it escaped being shot down by the Russians. Would it land in Australia? Would it land in China? Where would it land? There is plenty of talk about the TSR2 being a wonderful machine, but nobody takes the trouble to think out the logical conclusion of this argument. We must be realists. The Minister spoke about developments to the end of this decade, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West was talking about the 1970s. It is assumed that no technological change will take place in the world of aircraft in the next 10 years.
    We all agreed with the tribute which the Minister paid to the people who fought in the Battle of Britain—I believe that the hon. Member for Macclesfield was connected with it—but surely there is a world of difference between the situation in the world today and that which existed 25 years ago at the time of the Battle of Britain. We now have the rocket. I once asked in these debates, many years ago, "What action can a fighter take against a rocket?" The hon. Member who subsequently became Air Minister, who is now Lord Ward, to my great surprise,

    477
    backed me up out of his great technical experience and asked the same question.
    This argument is based on the assumption that there are no rockets. I would assume that, if an attack were made on the Soviet Union by a bomber, the reply would be a rocket. We do not need to be told of the young Russians who are being sent up to the stratosphere and who travel round the world. We know about them. We met them. Russia has sent up about half a dozen of these people. I have spoken to some of them. They have sent up a woman. The last spacecraft they sent up contained two people. It seems quite obvious to me that, if we have the kind of war fought with the sentimental attitudes envisaged by the romantic hon. Gentleman from the opposite side of the Committee, before the TSR2 reaches Russia they will know that it is on its way, someone will press a button and the whole country will be wiped out.
    Yet both Government and Opposition, as far as I can see, have spent approximately £500 million on this project, which is already obsolete in the light of the development of rockets. We do not have any rockets. I think that it would be realistic to say that in the first few minutes of another war somebody would press the button in Moscow. The result would be that the rockets, with their tremendous explosive power, megaton after megaton, would descend on this country. That would be the end of the war for us, and possibly the end of civilisation. These are the realities, so I believe that the Government, in so far as they are continuing—as they propose to continue—this expenditure, are continuing a colossal expenditure which is a waste of money, a waste of manpower and a waste of national resources.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In that case, does the hon. Member intend to vote against it, or will he give his support to this expenditure?
    Mr. Hughes: I did not quite catch that question.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As it is a waste of manpower and expenditure and various other things, in the hon. Gentleman's view, does he intend to finish tonight by voting against the Estimates or not?
    Mr. Hughes: I might have been tempted to do that, if I had not heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. If I voted against the Estimates, I should be voting for putting the hon. Member in, and that would mean another £500 million on the present total.
    Sir J. Eden indicated assent.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member nods his head. While I am a technological realist, I am also a political realist.
    There is one suggestion on which I think I ought to finish, and which is based on something in the Air Estimates of which I approve. I am attracted by the idea of helicopters. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I think that helicopters can be used for non-military expeditions. I approve of helicopters rescuing people in the sea, on the mountains and generally carrying out rescue operations. I think that if hon. Members opposite want to divert the aircraft industry into work which would really help the industry, they should advise it to go in for helicopters. I put that point of view to the hon. Member for Macclesfield. We have only 280 helicopters. Instead of cultivating the illusion that we shall sell the TSR2, the TXYZ and so on to Germany, what about offering the Germans, the Chinese, the Russians and others helicopters? I am sure that the helicopter would be used not for military purposes but for peace activities and would have a huge market all over the world.
    Perhaps I might pass on a suggestion. There is a Scottish aviation company manufacturing aircraft not far from my constituency which has been shamefully neglected. I should like that factory diverted to helicopter manufacture. That would not be a military aircraft; it would be a useful aircraft, and the components could be made in advance factories established in my constituency.
    I think I have made a constructive comment to end my annual oration in this debate. I have the facts on my side. I am no longer a voice calling in the wilderness that we cannot afford to continue this expenditure. The economic facts are facing us; they appear in the White Paper, and when they appear in a White Paper, it means that probably in about five years' time after that they become political realities.

    479
    When I looked back on that old speech of mine 10 years ago, I was amazed at my accuracy as a technological prophet. Therefore, I hope that in these reviews the Government will not listen to the big bosses, the brass hats of the aircraft industry, and not listen too much to the workers in the aircraft industry, because they have to change their occupation—they must stop making aircraft and, instead, make machine tools or products of the electronic industry or something else which can sell in the export markets of the world. I think that my right hon. Friends have done their best in the little time at their disposal to prune these Estimates and I hope that they will continue their good work, and I trust that next year the Estimates will be considerably less.
    6.32 p.m.
    Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). We always find him entertaining and always respect his views and his sincerity. However, I feel that he has given his views on so many occasions that it is no part of my function to try to answer his points.
    But, at least, I join with the hon. Member in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force upon his performance in presenting these Estimates to the Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be in that office too long. Nevertheless, let us thank him for the lucid manner in which he made his oration. He certainly covered a wide field. No doubt he can claim that he has already mentioned some of the points which I shall put to him. Nevertheless, he invited us to ask him to go into greater detail later if we wanted him to do so.
    I have spoken in most of the Air Estimates debates in the last 15 years. Although in that time there have been many changes in rôles and in aircraft and rocket construction, I feel, like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, that many points that I have made in earlier speeches can well be reiterated today. On occasions I have spoken of the necessity to step up methods of recruiting, and I have emphasised that, contrary to the opinion of some airminded judges, the pilot of the manned aircraft will be
    480
    required for many years to come—and I am still of that opinion. Judging by the many recruiting advertisements in the national Press offering a flying career, the Government are of the same opinion.
    Perhaps when the Government reply to the debate we may have some more details about recruiting. I was interested to read in paragraph 92 of the White Paper:
    "Progressive reductions are taking place in the establishment of the Royal Air Force"
    and that the adult male strength fell by more than 4,000 during last year. Indeed, the Under-Secretary briefly touched upon that point today, but perhaps he could enlarge upon the three-line statement in the White Paper. For instance, what is the ultimate establishment? What are the Government aiming at? What do the Government see as the ultimate establishment of the Royal Air Force? Paragraph 101 tells us:
    "It is becoming more difficult to recruit direct entry aircrew."
    Should not the Government give more and not less encouragement to the flying training schools and flying clubs? Is effort being made to combine the work of big business flying and suitable auxiliaries? Are auxiliaries being built up for use in emergency as a reservoir of pilots? These are questions that I should like answered.
    According to the White Paper—there were a few sentences on this subject from the Under-Secretary—entries to Cranwell are satisfactory and all scholarship awards are being taken up. The hon. Gentleman invited us, if we were interested in this sphere, to ask for more information. I want to know whether it is the intention of the Government to make more scholarship awards available.
    Recruiting is a specialised job, and if the conditions are not right recruits will not be forthcoming. For instance, no mention has been made about planning for promotion within the Service. I know from experience that this is a controversial issue. I know that many of my colleagues and I were bogged down for some time as flight lieutenants. That seems to be a bottleneck. Have the Government any ideas in this rather controversial sphere?
    Recruiting can be affected adversely, as can the morale of the Royal Air Force, by irresponsible statements and hasty and unwarranted opinions. I am certain that

    481
    the recruiting prospects for the Royal Air Force will not be improved by the opening lines of the Defence White Paper, which have rightly been condemned from these benches and by all thoughtful people. To say that our defence forces are
    "seriously overstretched and in some respects dangerously under-equipped"
    is quite irresponsible and not entirely true. Of course we were stretched in the last 12 months because we had so many commitments to undertake, but we fulfilled them all with speed and efficiency. There is no question that the Royal Air Force is capable of tremendous damage in any second strike, and since the war that fact has undoubtedly deterred any would-be aggressor. Perusal of the White Paper denies the opening paragraph in almost every consideration. Nevertheless, this denigration must have its effect on morale, if not on recruiting.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member refers to the Royal Air Force in a "second strike" rôle. Does he not mean "first strike"?
    Sir E. Bullus. There is a second strike afterwards. The would-be aggressor knows the great damage that can be inflicted by the Royal Air Force. That is the deterrent. I would say—I am sure that all hon. Members would subscribe to this view—that there is no conceivable idea of this country ever engaging first. Our experience during two world wars surely is sufficient.
    Mr. Orme: Do not forget about Suez.
    Sir E. Bullus: I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister will say something about the morale of the Royal Air Force. My experience in recent years is that the Royal Air Force has built up as a whole a tremendous morale. The bomber force especially knew its potentialities, and it believed that its striking power and capability were accepted. They were the corps élite. But too often in recent years—there is no denial of this—they have heard of criticism from the party opposite, more particularly when hon. Members opposite were on these benches, that we did not possess the independent deterrent, that our bombers would not get through and that the independent deterrent was a huge bluff. Now that the Socialists are in power we have them confirming their accusations that we were dangerously under-equipped, they say.
    482
    This is not the stuff to give the troops. It is anything but the stuff to hand out for morale and recruiting and, above all, it is not true. I hope that it will be corrected and that we will hear no more of this degrading and deplorable line. The two opening lines in the White Paper are, most unfortunately, right out of keeping with the entire review and, indeed, with the review made by the Under-Secretary this afternoon. On almost every page of the White Paper is some report of the wide-flung and numerous commitments of the R.A.F. I will quote a few of them.
    "R.A.F. Transport Command in the U.K. is ready to provide airlift of men and equipment on behalf of all three services and reinforce the tactical forces overseas. … Other forces in the U.K. include Bomber Command, Fighter Command and Coastal Command. … Apart from its nuclear rôle Bomber Command provides a major strike capability with conventional weapons and with a capacity for rapid movement world-wide at short notice. The R.A.F. maintain a presence in the Persian Gulf … R.A.F. units permanently deployed in the Far East include Canberra bombers and recce aircraft, Hunter ground attack aircraft, Shackleton, Hasting, Beverley and Argosy aircraft, Whirlwind and Belvedere helicopters and Javeline fighters … Bloodhound Squadron in Singapore … R.A.F. transport in Cyprus support in South Arabia … in Kenya in Tanganyika operations … even in Fishery protection …"
    This applies even in fishery protection and air sea rescue work, as the Under-Secretary underlined earlier. It is a fine record for the R.A.F.
    When one reads of the world-wide commitments being fulfilled by the R.A.F., of its operations and efficiency, one realises that such coverage must stretch a peace-time force. However, all our commitments have been fulfilled. A significant and unpalatable footnote to ask is this. Would these commitments have been fulfilled, in whole or in part, had the Socialist Government come to power earlier? It is a salutary thought.
    During the defence debate the Secretary of State for Defence stated, almost as an aside, that he was going to save about £300,000, which had been set aside for R.A.F. ceremonial dress. I thought that he then spoke in a rather derisory fashion. What are the details of this saving, for we have not heard since? Is it really for ceremonial dress? Certainly some ceremonial dress is required, but is it, possibly, money set aside for tropical kit? These are the sort of questions,

    483
    when accusations and derisory statements are thrown about, to which answers should be given.
    I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) in asking the Minister to tell us more about the replacement for the Shackletons. Is it the intention to use Comets? Is this the right answer and, in this connection, what of fuel consumption and rôle? Can the Comets fly low level and fulfil the service required? I join my hon. Friend in asking for these details, because morale and recruitment are much affected by the policy of a Government in respect of their aircraft, and the recent decisions of this Government in regard to aircraft are anything but reassuring.
    While all those with the good of the R.A.F. at heart will welcome the decision to retain some of our bomber force for our independent use East of Suez, cannot the Government be prevailed upon to retain the whole of the force together and not to hand over a part of it to a larger authority and outside our own independent control? A divided, uncertain or unhappy R.A.F. can only mean havoc in our defence policy. It is the R.A.F. which is the front line service in this modern age; indeed, the cornerstone of any defence policy.
    I counsel the Government to act on the advice of our defence experts: procure the equipment that is needed; this is British and order those planes at once. Do not rely on American planes, despite what has been said this afternoon, because some of them are obsolete already. We should give maximum encouragement to our own aircraft industry. Where should we have been in the last war had we not had a British aircraft industry?
    I turn to less controversial points. I am glad to learn from the few lines devoted to the Air Training Corps that the strength is 2,700. The whole Committee will agree that this Corps is an invaluable source of recruiting and should be given every encouragement. Its senior officers give much voluntary time and the R.A.F. owes a great deal to them. Mention of their work should be made as often as possible, for they are undoubtedly encouraged by any kindly reference.
    We have a flourishing squadron in Wembley, the No. 78 Wembley Borough
    484
    Squadron, and the local council has agreed to the presentation of a banner later this month. A few years ago I was able to help—by mention in debate and communications with the then Under-Secretary—in securing new accommodation for the squadron. That has been of great encouragement and practical help to the squadron, of which I am now a vice-president.
    I cannot too strongly stress the value of giving maximum encouragement to the Corps and I hope that increasing interest will be taken in its members and their work. In this respect, what is the position throughout the country? Is the accommodation problem being solved? Is maximum use being made of naval cadet and Territorial Army buildings? How is the work progressing in Scotland?
    I was glad to read in the White Paper of the success of the joint-service training which was carried out with Commonwealth countries and our allies. It is encouraging to note that in the Commonwealth and elsewhere 780 officers and men from 30 countries undertook flying or technical training at R.A.F. establishments. The White Paper states that there is to be continued co-operation in flying training in the next 12 months. Could we be given more details of this; for example, are the numbers to be stepped up?
    This naturally makes us think of the future and it is relevant to ask at this stage when we are to receive a report of the Committee which was set up to deal with space research. This is an important Committee; we should like to know what progress is being made and if it is possible to have a report soon.
    Is the Minister able to say anything about the absorption of the R.A.F. into the unified Ministry of Defence? Although the whole Committee agreed that this was a necessary step—and I believe that it was carried out with great efficiency by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft)—there must obviously be teething troubles and no doubt the Government, having recently come to power, have experienced some.
    Is unification proceeding satisfactorily and are there any major difficulties? Can we have a report on the progress being made? For example, what is the present position of the Ministry of Aviation? Is

    485
    it contemplated to bring that within this sphere eventually? How is the new Public Building and Works Department affected by the new Ministry of Defence? Is enough being done for Service accommodation?
    One could ask many questions about this grand scheme of unification, Sir Samuel, but it brings with it some difficulty in the way of limitation of debate. This is more a matter for the Leader of the House, I know, but could we not, just as we devote a whole week each year to the Budget, devote a whole week to defence? The first two days could he taken up with general defence and the other three days with the Service Estimates. Within that limitation, hon. Members could then speak on defence generally—and even on foreign policy, because defence is the handmaiden of foreign policy.
    Last year at this time we were asked for a global sum for the Defence Services of £1,553,198,000 and this year we are asked for £1,692,017,000. That is an increase of £138,819,000. Last year at this time we were asked for the Royal Air Force a sum of £503,800,000. This year the figure is £561,770,000—an increase of £57,970,000. These are huge figures. Where are the tremendous savings claimed by the Government, and what accounts for the extra expenditure? Perhaps the Socialist Government are now learning that we cannot have reasonable and responsible defence on the cheap. World-wide responsibility is a costly business, and I am afraid that it will cost us very much money for many years to come.
    I may have been unduly critical of the Government's policy for the R.A.F., but I have nothing but the greatest praise for this Service itself. I would also add to the appreciation expressed by my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Defence the other day of Earl Mountbatten. I served on Earl Mount-batten's staff during the war, and I know what a vast amount of work he has done and what the country owes him for its defence. The same applies to the officers and men of the R.A.F. I hope that the Government will be conscious of the great heritage we have in this fine Service; that they will encourage and not discourage it, and that the Service itself will prosper and maintain the high standards
    486
    and efficiency for which it is noted, and in which our best wishes and our hopes are enshrined.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene with some trepidation in a debate in which the air marshals and ex-officers take part. My association with the Royal Air Force was not quite so illustrious as theirs, though I saw service with Bomber Command during the Second World War. I therefore know at least something about the old R.A.F.; but it is of the new Service that we are now particularly talking. In what I say I shall be critical of events and expenditure, but I shall certainly not be critical of the men and women serving in the R.A.F. at present. Great changes are at present taking place in the Service and in the aircraft industry that supplies it, and because of that we have to look clearly and frankly at the situation.
    I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence has set up this critical review of defence expenditure. Any country of our size and capacity that contemplated spending £2,000 million a year plus—on an escalation basis, because of inevitable rises in cost—and did nothing about it would be committing suicide in relation to its general advancement. This inquiry is, therefore, to be welcomed. Nevertheless, despite what has already been done by way of cancellation of certain aircraft, these Estimates show an increase of £46 million on the previous figure, bringing them to a total of £561 million. As I believe that that figure does not include all expenditure, particularly in relation to certain weapons that the R.A.F. may carry, the real total is possibly even higher.
    I feel as other speakers have about the cost of certain individual items of expenditure on the Royal Air Force and its ancillary services. It seems that though we can get details of Government expenditure down to the number of pencils purchased, and their cost, we cannot find the specific cost of individual aircraft being manufactured. I believe that part of the reason for that is that aircraft are continually being put on the drawing-board, put into experimental work, and then manufactured, and the escalation is such that it is impossible

    487
    to give a specific cost for the manufacture of a certain item of aircraft.
    Another thing that is increasingly alarming the public is that aircraft now recommended by the Air Council and the Government are obsolete by the time they are in general production. In other words, we are running in order to stay in the same place. Such is the whole facade of defence expenditure that we are never able to say that we have reached a stage at which defence can rest at the specific figure of cost—that we have enough of this, that and the other—because we find that as soon as an aircraft is in production it is obsolete and we then have to look for a more advanced type. That seems to me like lunacy in the modern world, and we must get away from it.
    I hope that the Government cancel the TSR2—
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Oh.
    Mr. Orme: We have been told that a serious inquiry is being made into this project and, unlike the hon. Member opposite, I believe that when the Government say that they have not taken a decision, they have not taken a decision but that a report will follow the inquiry. I accept Government statements in that respect, and I will await the report. Nevertheless, I say to the Government that I hope that the TRS2 is cancelled—
    Sir E. Bullus: Will not the cost of the American substitute escalate in the same way, and we shall be spending the money out of the country?
    Mr. Orme: I will come to that point, and this is where I am in disagreement with my own Front Bench, perhaps, as well as with the Front Bench opposite. I do not feel that we need the American substitute, either. Our defence commitments should be in line with the rôle we can play in the world without having all these modern aircraft and systems. I hope that we can get away from that.
    I am an engineer. I, like some of my colleagues, think that the day will come when the aircraft industry must redirect its sights. It is only right that the interests of members of my society who work in engineering should be protected. I want to see the time come when, if there
    488
    is redundancy, there will be no argument about severance pay and average earnings will be paid for a period whilst men find employment. Speaking as a Socialist, I want work to be taken to where the men are. We should not expect redundant workers to pick up their homes and move to other areas, whether to the South-East or anywhere else. I cannot understand why modern skilled engineers—there is a specific problem with some designers—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is straying rather from the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Orme: I stand corrected, Sir Samuel. I am trying to link the aircraft which are supplied to the Air Force with the economic consequences of either cancellation or redirection. This is a real problem. Government policy must be geared to this whole problem from start to finish. One facet of it cannot be taken in isolation.
    In an interjection, I asked a question to which I have not even now received a satisfactory answer. The question of the rôle. of the V-bombers east of Suez is most disquieting. I want to know specifically whether those aircraft are to carry independent nuclear weapons, the deterrent. I contend that the Government's policy—the policy on which I fought the election—was that we would reject the independent nuclear deterrent. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but this, to my way of thinking, is an exceedingly serious question. The rôle of the V-bombers and the extension of their rôle east of Suez is not in line with what I think our foreign policy should be. If it is a case of cover for India or for South-East Asia, we should go for political settlements and not settlements by the V-bombers.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again getting very wide of the Air Estimates. This is not a general debate on defence.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that. I gather that my hon. Friend is asking about the strategic rôle of the V-bombers in the Far East.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must come back to it and not speak in such general terms.
    Mr. Orme: Thank you, Sir Samuel. I am dealing with the rôle of the Royal Air Force and the rôle of the V-bombers east of Suez. It can be inferred from the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will not slate whether those planes are carrying an independent deterrent that they can, and possibly will, carry such an independent deterrent. I myself feel that the V-bombers should not play such a rôle. I am convinced that this rôle east of Sue—-the provision of bases which the V-bombers will use, the possibility of them carrying a nuclear weapon—will in itself bring pressures to bear on this country's expenditure which we cannot afford at present.
    My constituents want to see bathrooms before bombers. In my constituency there are one in four houses without a bath. We want some of this Air Force defence expenditure to be spent on these sorts of things at home and not be spent, as it is in many cases, on weapons which become obsolete before they are manufactured I do not want to see this money spent on a type of foreign policy which I think is redundant and on Britain maintaining and retaining an independent nuclear deterrent which I thought we had rejected when we went to the polls at the General Election.
    I have put this point of view to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with it when he winds up. What I wanted to say was in the broad terms of defence expenditure and the Air Force Estimates. As I said at the beginning, when I was flying in the Royal Air Force some years ago I was doing a job in a war against Fascism in Europe, and the Royal Air Force, right from the Battle of Britain to the end of the war, served the country absolutely magnificently. Other people may talk about the development of rockets, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) pointed out, we might elect to go for a costly weapons system such as the TSR2 only to find in five or six years' time that it is completely obsolete because it has been superseded by other methods or systems. If we are sincere in not wanting to see the proliferation, not only of nuclear weapons, but of other weapons throughout the world, we must
    490
    play our part by ensuring that we reduce our own weapons. The first thing to do is to cancel the V-bombers east of Suez.
    I say this to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who spoke so lucidly for the Government. I recognise the job the Government have undertaken. I believe that for the first time the public is becoming really aware of the amount of our gross national product being spent on defence. I say this to right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee: increasingly over the coming months and years they and I will be pressed by our constituents to justify this expenditure, in a world where tension could possibly be eased, in relation to the social services and benefits that our people want.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To which Vote is the hon. Gentleman referring?
    Mr. Orme: I am talking about both Labour and Conversative voters who will be concerned, because I assume that nobody wants to see needless expenditure on weapons systems or anything else when other means can he found to do away with these sort of things. We recognise that they cannot be abolished overnight. Nevertheless, we should be looking to alternatives whereby we could reduce Air Force expenditure.
    I hope that the public, as I have said before, will seek increasingly to ensure that they get value for money in relation to defence expenditure, including Air Force expenditure. It is all very well for experts on either side to talk, as they have done, in the language of algebra about the TFX, the TSR2 and all the other names, about first and second strike, and the fancy names which have been devised in recent years. I hope that the public will seek to cut through this verbiage and say categorically, "We want to know what you are prepared to provide in the way of other services. Why are you spending this money on the Air Force and on the other Services? What are we getting in return for it?" This is the question which will be asked, and it is the question which I pose here today. I recognise the care with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his Department have examined this defence expenditure. I recognise that he is using a valuation assessment which means value for money. I also recognise that the defence expenditure has not been reduced in reality but that it has merely

    491
    been cut from the amount for which the previous Administration budgeted. In 12 months' time, however, we shall come back—
    Mr. A. E. Cooper: You will not.
    Mr. Orme:—and we shall expect something considerably more. The pressure of events on hon. Members on both sides of the House, and on the Government in particular, will show that the time has come to have a reassessment of this arms race, this race to destruction, in which so many nations are involved, and we shall have to look for alternative courses of action, through the United Nations, to achieve peaceful settlements.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: It is rather striking that when we debate defence or Service matters the Government find it impossible to get anyone on their side of the House to support their policy. It is striking but it is not surprising, because theirs is not a particularly good policy. It is quite clear from what has been said that we can take it as certain that the ultimate defeat of the present Administration cannot be delayed beyond the debate on next year's Defence White Paper.
    On this year's Estimates I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions arising out of a remark which he made towards the end of his speech. It was to the effect that the R.A.F. needs a clear statement of policy and of the rôle which it is to carry out. It is quite clear that this policy has not been formulated and does not exist.
    We have been told a great deal, in speeches by the Prime Minister and in the Defence White Paper, to the effect that the R.A.F. will be able to fulfil its rôle if it gets certain weapons and aircraft. But nowhere has there been a sign that these rôles have been thought out and defined, and it is particularly unfortunate that nowhere have we had any evidence that there has been a rethinking of defence policy and the rôle which the R.A.F. may now need to play east of Suez and in particular in South-East Asia. Since 17th October when the Chinese detonated an atomic weapon there should have been a strategic reappraisal. There should also have been a strategic reappraisal on the basis of what has been happening in
    492
    Vietnam. But we can find no evidence of this, and there still seems to be no certainty that the Government have any clear idea of what rôle the R.A.F. is likely to have to play if it is called upon to perform more active service in South-East Asia.
    What we have instead is a decision to acquire certain aeroplanes now and to build a strategy round them later. I am sure this must be wrong, if only because, if the strategic needs are not forecast, the risk of waste in aircraft purchase is much greater. When we consider the aircraft which the R.A.F. is now promised—what are laughingly called in the Defence White Paper "new aircraft"—the situation is by no means encouraging. One so-called new aircraft, the C130E—which the Under-Secretary this afternoon revealed to us as flying mutton dressed up as airborne lamb—a machine which apparently we are going to buy in considerable numbers, is not only outdated but it is not certain what engines it will have and, in addition, it has a defect which I do not think has even been considered. It is tied to 3,000 ft.-plus runways, which means that in operation it is much less flexible than the alternative HS681.
    This in turn has an effect which I do not think has been considered. I refer to the additional requirements which must stem from using 3,000 ft. runways—the ground defence requirements for the defence of the perimeter. This aircraft is so designed that it needs airfields twice as long as the HS681 requires. This is an additional commitment which arises with the purchase of these aircraft, namely, the manpower requirement for airfield defence.
    The P1127 is certainly a new aircraft. In fact, it is so new in the form in which the R.A.F. will ultimately get it that it can be said to have been scarcely invented yet. The Prime Minister told us on 2nd February:
    "… there is an urgent need for an operational version of P1127, a successful aircraft which, in its present experimental form, is about to go to an American-German-R.A.F. squadron for evaluation. … the R.A.F. can have, by the time they need it … an aircraft which will in fact be first in the field, with vertical take-off for close support of our land forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 931–2.]
    But it seems doubtful whether the P1127 in its operational form, and carrying

    493
    armaments to any reasonable degree, will remain a vertical take-off aircraft. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that in order to make the P1127 operational we shall have to scrap the vertical take-off capacity, and this in effect will deprive the R.A.F. of the advantage of flexibility and the ability to disperse which the real vertical take-off would have given. The P1127, whose costs apparently have not been calculated but which are certain to escalate, is likely to come into service very little before the P1154 would have done—this the Minister made clear this afternoon—and yet this aircraft has been committed to the R.A.F.
    A much more serious matter is the decision, which has not yet been taken, about the TSR2. The Minister this afternoon was not exactly encouraging about this aircraft. He denied that he was attempting to soften up anyone, although that denial was probably unnecessary since one might diagnose the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) as having been softened up for some time. The evidence that we are being prepared for a decision to cancel TSR2 is frighteningly frequent. We had a statement from the Minister of Aviation on 9th February when he went on record as saying that:
    "The TSR2 … is as firmly geared to an exclusively British market as is a week's holiday at a Butlin's holiday camp. But it is a good deal less good value for money."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 233.]
    If that is enthusiasm, I fail to recognise it. That is a cynical jibe which has been bitterly resented by the R.A.F. which hopes to have this aircraft, and by the men who make it. This afternoon the Minister mentioned the bad effect which the delay in the Government's decision is having upon the morale of the aircraft workers, and this is so.
    I can say from personal knowledge, because a very large number of my constituents work in the aircraft industry, that they morale of the men who are making the aircraft is bitterly low. They are depressed to a degree which, if it is allowed to continue, may have a damaging effect on the standards of their workmanship and the pride that they
    494
    take in their work. This is something which I hope that the Government will bear in mind as an additional reason for taking a quick decision, and a quick decision not to cancel the TSR2.
    We have had much talk about what the nation can afford and about cost consciousness. We are not moving here in the world of the audit. The definitions which we are being required to accept as being the dispassionate judgment of the super-efficient chartered accountant are very subjective decisions and they are reached as a result of a political view. Other decisions can be reached equally effectively as a result of a different political view. The question of what the nation can afford is something which may be defined by one side of the Committee in one way and by the other in another way and either can be right.
    The Government are attempting to say, as if it were an absolute truth, that certain costs cannot be afforded by the nation. This must be seen for what it is, which is simply an attempt to state a political view as if it were a categorical truth in the hope that people will fall for it as a categorical truth. But it is not. It is a subjective judgment.
    All that we have heard in the past weeks and months since the election, all the argument against the TSR2, against the cancelled Hawker Siddeley projects, against the Concord, against the independent airlines and so on—all this is not the fault of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force. He is here today in the rôle. of the sorcerers' apprentice. There are three sorcerers, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of Aviation. We are glad to see their apprentice, but we would have been glad to see them here, too.
    The Under-Secretary has reminded us that this is the anniversary year of the Battle of Britain. I do not want to give any further currency to attempts to invoke shades of glory for one or another political point of view, but if we are to be reminded of this, and if we are to have a thought for this anniversary year, it might be as well to remember that as a nation our people would far prefer to have a first-rate Royal Air Force than to be freed of prescription charges.
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Doig: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) had a difficult job to do in opening the debate. Nobody could blame him for having made rather heavy weather of it. It was terribly difficult to try to criticise a programme which was, in the main, the programme of his own Government. The hon. Gentleman started by trying to say that there was no difference and by blaming us because there was no difference. He said that we were carrying on with the same old pattern. If the hon. Member does not recognise any difference, the taxpayers and the electors do. The most notable difference is in the fact that the present Government are determined to obtain value for the taxpayers' money. This is a noticeable difference in policy which is obvious to the public if not to right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    The hon. Member went on to say that we must not allow computers to become masters and that they cannot replace clear-cut decisions. He is correct there, but where were the clear-cut decisions of his Government? Three hundred million pounds were wasted because they could not make a single clear-cut decision. Projects were abandoned and came to nothing and we were left at the end with aircraft inferior to those owned by countries such as Egypt and Indonesia. If that is taking clear-cut decisions, very few people apart from hon. and right hon. Members opposite would think so.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman think it particularly helpful to the R.A.F. in the Far East to allege that its aircraft are inferior to those of the Indonesians whom they confront?
    Mr. Doig: The hon. Member can form his own opinion, but it has been stated over and over again by people who ought to know, and I accept their word for it.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to be misunderstood. Does he mean that the performance is inferior but not the aircraft itself? The aircraft in its general construction and quality is equal, if not superior, to anything in the world, but its performance might not be as good as that of a machine designed and developed later.
    Mr. Doig: It is a rather strange argument to say that we have a machine which is superior but that its performance is inferior. I regret to say that I cannot follow my hon. Friend. If its performance is inferior then it must be inferior.
    May I quote an example of the opinion of outside independent persons about the clear-cut decisions of the last Government? The chairman of the Hawker Siddeley Aircraft Company, speaking about the ex-Secretary of State for Defence, said that he could not take a clear-cut decision. He could not make up his mind and he waffled for years. I admit that the chairman's co-directors subsequently held a meeting and decided to dissociate themselves from those remarks. I quite understand that the chairman of Hawker Siddeley said this in all honesty, and his first words were that by no stretch of imagination should he be considered a Socialist.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very far from the Estimates which we are discussing.
    Mr. Doig: I am dealing with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. Surely that is in order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said, I am saying now that the hon. Gentleman is straying very far from what is being discussed.
    Mr. Doig: We will forget about clear-cut decisions, because everybody in the country knows that they were not taken, except hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member was kind enough to quote what Sir Roy Dobson said.
    Mr. Doig: Is this in order, Sir Samuel, when you would not allow me to say it?
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I have not yet put my question. I was about to ask the hon. Member if he would continue with his reference to future aircraft for the R.A.F. and quote what was said about the C130E selected by his party.
    Mr. Doig: Since Sir Samuel has just stopped me from carrying on that line

    497
    of argument it would be wrong for me to pursue it now. It would be out of order.
    The C130 has been ordered by the Government. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite blame them for trying to get a British engine into it if that will not cost too much? Is this something that the Government should not do?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose—
    Mr. Doig: I cannot give way again.
    I want to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about a point which has disturbed me very much. Is the use of non-British aircraft temporary? This is a very important question. While I agree that it was necessary in the circumstances which the Government inherited that they should secure aircraft suitable for the jobs that need doing, and get them quickly, I think that it would be wrong to pursue a long-term policy of relying on aircraft manufactured by other countries.
    I would be rather disturbed if the Royal Air Force were to be equipped with German or Japanese aircraft. It is quite possible for potential enemies to know too much about the performance of aircraft, what kind a country is ordering and how many. Before the last war, the Government had to take the decision that, while aircraft were improving all the time, they would order the best aircraft available and produce it whether further improvements to it could be made or not. On that basis, we got the Spitfire and if the decision to go ahead with that aircraft had not been taken we would have been in serious trouble.
    There may well come a time when a similar decision will have to be taken. If that is so, the aircraft involved will have no value if a potential enemy knows about it—and if we buy aircraft from other countries then a potential enemy will know about them. I would be very disturbed if my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary decided, as a long-term policy, on the provision of aircraft for the Royal Air Force by buying from any other country.
    I want to deal with a question that was bandied about a great deal during the election but which has been forgotten
    498
    both today and in last Monday's debate on the Army Estimates. It is the question of conscription. During the election, the leaders of both main parties said that they would not reintroduce conscription in peacetime. But right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters claimed many times during the election that the return of a Labour Government would mean conscription. It is strange, therefore, that during our first debates—
    Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. I suggest to you that conscription is a matter which concerns defence as a whole and more concerns the Army than the Air Estimates.
    Mr. John Rankin: Further to that point of order, Sir Samuel. I have vivid recollections of the debate on the Air Estimates a year ago in which an hon. Gentleman highly respected in this House, whose name, I believe, coincided with the name of the present Deputy-Chairman, ignored this type of futile intervention in view of the general health of the debate and I would like to encourage that hon. Gentleman to help the Committee as he did only a year ago.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the matter is in order if it is related to the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Doig: Surely conscription can be discussed in deciding the amount of money to be spent on recruiting. This issue was raised widely by the party opposite during the election. The inference was that if a Labour Government were elected we would have conscription. It is, therefore, rather strange that, in the first Service Estimates debates since then, the word "conscription" has never been mentioned. This shows that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not believe the things they were saying during the election. In effect, they are now admitting that this was purely an election stunt.
    Recently, there was a recruiting programme on television which attracted quite a number of recruits. The Press was told that the cost of the programme per recruit worked out at £275. The money spent on recruiting, which must be a very large sum, could be cut down very substantially. We are told in the

    499
    White Paper that the Royal Air Force is short of tradesmen and specialists. Why is this? Why cannot the R.A.F. get motor drivers, motor mechanics, electricians, clerks and the rest?
    The answer is that, in order to serve in the R.A.F., or any other Service, these men have to become slaves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have to sign away their freedom. A slave has to do exactly what he is told and go where he is told. That is a very good description of a member of the R.A.F.
    Mr. Cooper: Would the hon. Gentleman say that that was a fair description of hon. Members opposite, who are slaves to the Whips at the moment?
    Mr. Doig: If the hon. Gentleman imagines that we are slaves to the Whips he is quite wrong.
    Mr. Cooper: Prove it.
    Mr. Doig: If we had been slaves last Friday hon. Members would not have won that vote.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. Last Friday has nothing to do with the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Doig: I will return to the subject of the shortage of tradesmen. Why will not a tradesman who has spent years learning to do a job efficiently join the R.A.F.? Simply because he is not prepared to give up his freedom, which is the first condition of joining any of the Armed Forces. A recruit must be prepared to surrender his freedom. If a man surrenders his freedom then the nearest word for his situation that I can find in the dictionary is "slavery". He can be sent to any part of the world.
    Mr. Cooper: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
    Mr. Doig: I should know. I was sent to the other end of the world.
    Mr. Cooper: So was I.
    Mr. Doig: A bank has branches all over the world, but it does not say to potential staff that they must sign on for seven or fourteen years, or whatever it may be, and go anywhere the bank wants them to. That is why the banks have no difficulty in finding clerks. But the R.A.F. cannot get clerks and other tradesmen.
    500
    I believe that the R.A.F. could save considerable sums of money by making greater use of civilians. After all, aerodromes stay put all the time. They do not move about. They require staff but only a tiny proportion of their staff at present is civilian. Surely, if an electrician is required, for instance, at Turnhouse, a civilian could be engaged who lives near Turnhouse with his family. This would save a great deal of money.
    There are jute mills in my constituency with branches in India. When they want someone to go to India, they give him an inducement to go. They do not say to everybody who starts in the jute mill, "We will not start you unless you are prepared to go to India and stay there as long as we want". If they did, they would not get anyone to work for them. This is a fact which the R.A.F. could well consider.
    I want now to refer to recruit training. We were told earlier that it takes roughly two months to train an R.A.F. recruit. Let me tell the Committee some of the things which I had to do during the war when training as a motor driver after having been a civilian driver for years. I had to learn drill and how to use various types of weapons. In addition, I had to learn about the mechanism of those weapons, which was silly. If something went wrong with them, I had learnt how to repair them, or supposedly so, and I found that very few men could. I had to learn to find my way by the stars if I landed in the desert and how to find my way by the sun by putting a stick in the ground and observing the movement of its shadow. I had to learn details like how to time the engine of a motor vehicle and I had to memorise form numbers, and there are many forms in the R.A.F.
    If that state of affairs still continues, 19/20ths of the training is absolutely useless and the R.A.F. should review its training to see that only that which is useful is taught.
    Mr. Cooper: The object of training in a Service is to fit a man to cope with any eventuality, particularly an emergency. The hon. Member may have found in the whole of his training some things which he never needed, but there could have been times when he would have needed them. The great trouble in war—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) must not use an intervention to make a speech.
    Mr. Doig: What I am trying to say is that the vast bulk of this training is wasted. Although many commercial drivers were taken into the R.A.F. and taught how to do all sorts of intricate things, when a vehicle broke down hardly any of them could ever make a repair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Badly trained."] Two months' training covering all subjects is not sufficient time for an unskilled person to learn how to repair a motor vehicle.
    Mr. Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is talking more rubbish than has been heard in the House for a long time?
    Mr. Doig: Hon. Gentlemen are entitled to their opinions. I am confident that when my constituents read what I am saying—and I said it last year, as ton. Members will find if they look up the debate—they will agree that it is not nonsense. Some very senior officers in the Services agree with me. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he may come to a different conclusion.
    I am convinced that much of the money which goes into detailed training is wasted. As the Government have shown an interest in protecting the taxpayers' money, they should have a look at this matter, because I am sure that much money could be saved along the lines I have suggested.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) will forgive me if I do not comment on what he had to say. The Committee was interested in his comments about personnel, especially as his arguments were well informed from his own personal experience. I should like to discuss what the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force had to say about procurement.
    I want to be constructive. Hon. Members know that there are many aircraft workers in my constituency and it is easy to make political capital out of the present situation and the Government decisions announced just before Christmas when we debated the subject. It is
    502
    a subject which we have discussed at great length in censure debates, debates on the aircraft industry and, finally, in the defence debate last week. The number of persons involved in the aircraft industry in the United Kingdom as a whole is high. There are 264,000 in Great Britain and about 7,500 in Northern Ireland, a total of about 272,000. Of these, about 70 per cent. are employed on military and about 30 per cent. on civil work.
    The Government's decisions seem to present a serious threat to the major construction firms in the industry. From my own knowledge and visits to British Aircraft Corporation factories, I want to reinforce what has been said by hon. Members who have asked for a favourable decision on the TSR2. I have listened carefully to all of these debates and I believe that there is only one fresh point to be added.
    It has been suggested that the TFX would be cheaper than the TSR2. I believe that the TSR2 is the one aircraft in the world capable of very low contour flying. What is the point of ordering the TFX if, although cheaper, it fails in its mission while one TSR2, which might cost more, because of its very low contour flying, might get through and get back?
    I have seen and read much about this aircraft so that I speak with some direct personal knowledge. The systems developed for the TSR2, although costs have greatly escalated, are unique.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has said that the TSR2 would get to its objective and get back; get back to what?
    Mr. McMaster: That depends on the mission. The letters TSR stand for "Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance". If it were a reconnaissance mission, the aircraft would get back with its photographs. If it were fulfilling a nuclear rôle., a second-strike rôle., its very existtence in a form which enabled it to elude an enemy would make it an effective deterrent, more effective than any other aircraft could be.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: That does not answer the question.
    Mr. McMaster: I do not wish to take up too much time on it. The hon.

    503
    Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) will have an opportunity to deal with that point if he catches your eye, Sir Samuel.
    I have some experience, too, of the work done by Hawker Siddeley. I should like to say how very much I regret the decision to cancel the 1154. I do not think that the Government will gain anything by this. The 1127 will not be in service very much before the 1154 would have been. It will be a subsonic aircraft and even the advanced version will probably require Phantom cover before it can take off. What is more important is the fact that the decision to cancel the 1154 and to order the 1127 is a bad blow to the morale of the Hawker Siddeley group and the aircraft industry in Britain as a whole. Only by developing the very advanced types of technique required for the 1154 vertical take-off supersonic aircraft, and, in fact, by leading the world, can we hope to keep ahead of the Germans with their Dornier.
    I was particularly interested in the suggestion that the Germans might be persuaded to buy the 1127. Is this in spite of the work which they are doing on their Dornier aircraft which is even more advanced than the 1127 as it combines both deflected jet and separate vertical take-off engines? What we will find will be that the Germans will develop the Dornier vertical take-off aircraft, that they will share this with America and in this way America will come into the field. Approaches have been made in this respect, as hon. Members know. American representatives and salesmen wearing army uniforms have been in Germany recently and are already planning to take these ideas to America, our main competitor. In face of that, what do we do? We give the Americans an additional boost by ordering their aircraft. What advantage is this to the British aircraft industry?
    I should like to speak on the subject of which I have perhaps more special knowledge than most hon. Members, namely, the tactical transport. As I said, I wish to be constructive and I want to make my remarks as short as possible. But I must answer the points made not only in this debate but by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for
    504
    Defence in the defence debate in answer to questions from myself and other hon. Members.
    In the debate on 2nd March, the Secretary of State for Defence, in answering questions by myself and others, stated that the Belfast would be a very expensive strategic transport. This statement has caused the greatest concern in the factory of Short Bros. and Harland, because of the facts of the case. Ten Belfasts were initially ordered. The development costs of the aircraft were to be covered by the production, not of 10, but of 30 or more of the aircraft. If only 10 are to be ordered, the entire development cost must be written off against those 10, and this makes it a very expensive aircraft. But it does not make sense to order only 10 and to have to pay all the development and capital costs and spread them over such a small number of aircraft.
    As hon. Members who were in the House when this matter was debated in 1959 and 1960 will remember, the development costs were kept very low because Short Bros. adopted the existing wing and tail until of the CL44, and the proved Vanguard engine. By doing this the development cost was kept low, and whether more aircraft are ordered or not, these development costs must be paid. The version of the Belfast to which the Minister of Defence referred was an old version—the SC5, to give its full number. It had a sub-number, 21B. That was suggested four years ago when the operational requirement 351 was first put out. This version of the Belfast was put forward in competition with the HS681.
    The OR351 had, as an important part of its requirement, a short field take-off. The hon. Gentleman admitted, I think in answer to a question from me, that the C130E will not have a short field take-off. This puts a very different construction on the requirement. The Government have changed their requirement without consulting or informing either Short Bros. or Hawker Siddeley. If there was a reassessment of the position since the Labour Party came to power, I should like to know why this was done without consulting the two main firms concerned and without asking them what they could produce instead.
    Mr. Millan: That is not true. Hawker Siddeley put in an alternative, the

    505
    HS802. Therefore, it is not true to say that that firm was not consulted and did not have a chance to put forward an alternative to the HS681.
    Mr. McMaster: I can only say that the decision had been taken before these two companies heard about it. I know that Short Bros. put forward its own suggestion, but not because it was approached directly by the Ministry of Aviation. It heard in a roundabout way that a reassessment was taking place, and, not wanting to miss the bus, it put forward an up-to-date alternative which, strangely enough, had not been mentioned in any debate in the House and which would have met the OR351 from the point of view of speed. It would not have met the very short field take-off requirement, but that will not be met by the American aircraft either.
    I should like most sincerely to ask hon. Members opposite to think about this flatter most carefully, for this reason. If it were decided to order further Belfasts, there would be the great benefit of interchangeability, to start with. There would be 10 of these strategic freighters in use. Enormous benefits could be derived from the interchangeability of parts. There would be a similarity of loading. In addition, further work would be provided in this country. To do that, an advanced engine would be required—that is Tyne 20 engines, which would have 18 ft. propellers.
    I was surprised by some of the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State during his opening speech. He will recall that he referred to escalating costs. I asked whether he was aware that, although costs escalated, requirements changed. He seemed to think that requirements never change.
    Mr. Millan indicated dissent.
    Mr. McMaster: It is common knowledge that aircraft are planned 5, 6, 7 or even 10 years before they come into service. Are hon. Members opposite so naïve as to think that 10 years can pass without requirements changing?
    The original Belfast had its engines wide enough apart to take 16 ft. propellers, which were being used in the Vanguard. The requirement was changed. Some time after the original requirement was laid, it was realised that 18 ft. or
    506
    even 20 ft. propellers could be used. The spacing of the engine nacelles was changed and this required a change in design which necessitated additional cost. It is obvious that the 10 Belfasts on order will probably have to have these larger propellers and engines because yet another requirement has changed. These aircraft will be required to fly from Cyprus to Bahrain, which was not thought of in the early and mid 1950s. In order that they have the correct ceiling height to do this, a new Tyne engine with larger propellers will have to be developed. The same engine could be used in a tactical version of the Belfast to give superior performance to the C130E.
    In view of these facts which apparently have not been considered by the Government, I should like to deal again with the whole proposition. The Belfast can carry 50 per cent. more load than the Hercules. It has a hold 12 ft. sq. as against the smaller hold in the Lockheed Hercules. It can, therefore, carry a much wider variety of equipment. It was designed originally to take a Chieftain tank. No other aircraft in the world could take such a load. Therefore, if we wish to transport quickly our forces and their equipment, and as wide a range of equipment as possible, including armoured cars and even helicopters, they could be carried in the Belfast. We all know how important helicopters are for mobility. They could be transferred from Europe to meet requirements in the Far East by the use of the Belfast freighter aircraft. Troops and equipment, including rockets and other sophisticated equipment, could be carried in the Belfast but not in the Hercules.
    The Hercules is an old aircraft at the end of its development. The Belfast is brand new and has lots of stretch in it. With larger enginees it would have greater range and greater height. I am told that the cost of the Belfast would be £1·6 million each. I agree that this is about double the cost of the Hercules, but by getting the Belfast the Government would have an aircraft which is completely new and which, furthermore, would save dollars because it was built in this country. It would help to keep together our production and design teams and to retain the scientific and technical knowledge in this country.

    507
    I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should look again at the Report of the Estimates Committee on Transport Aircraft. One of the conclusions of that Committee, which reported in 1963, was that we should concentrate upon fewer aircraft. I believe that the Government accept this. We all know how civil aviation is growing and how particularly the freight side is growing. There could well be a good civil market with one of the nationalised Corporations or with other airlines throughout the world for such a developed version of the Belfast.
    All the capital cost must be paid off on the existing 10 Belfasts. Therefore, if the Government were to order more, this would enable them to spread the capital cost over a longer production run. To put it another way—and I can put it truthfully this way, because we have to pay for the development in any event—the additional aircraft would be delivered for the cost of labour and material only.
    I therefore ask the Minister to consider this solution. He said that the Hercules are required immediately. Why should not the Government lease sufficient C130s for three or four years to meet our immediate needs instead of buying them? In the meantime, the new Belfast, with a better engine, could be designed, developed, brought into production and put into service. This, I am told, would take three or four years, if the machine chosen was the new one. If, however, it were the existing aircraft, it could come into service more quickly because it is already in production.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: My hon. Friend has said that the Government have stated that they want the C130s quickly. They will not get them very early. According to the Government, the aircraft has not been made yet. [Interruption.]
    Mr. McMaster: I am aware of that. It reinforces my point. The Minister admitted earlier—[Interruption.]—I do not know why the Government benches are protesting about this. The Minister said this afternoon that he did not know what engine would be used for the Hercules. I cannot see the C130s being re-engined for service in less than a year.
    Mr. Rankin: We are sympathising with the hon. Member and wondering
    508
    whether he does not want to be spared from his friends.
    Mr. McMaster: I do not need any help to defend myself.
    I put one final question to the Government Front Bench. It turns upon the great importance of Short Brothers and Harland, particularly in Northern Ireland. I know that the Government are aware of this. We appreciate what the First Secretary to the Treasury said on this point and what the Minister of Aviation and other Ministers have said about it and the interest they have taken. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation is present on the Government Front Bench. He has visited my constituency and he knows about this.
    I refer the Government to the recent Wilson Report on the economic development of Northern Ireland, which stressed the importance of Short's as a centre of scientific and technical knowledge in Northern Ireland. It has been suggested by hon. Members opposite that the factory should be diversified, and I agree with this within limit. One must, however, remember what kind of factory the company has. It has 2 million sq. ft. of floor space and 7,000 employees, all in the aircraft industry, designing and manufacturing aircraft. Seven hundred of those people are aircraft designers, representing the cream of knowledge.
    If orders are cancelled, those men are likely to go abroad and Britain will lose this valuable asset of men who have been brought up and trained in this country. They include designers like Mr. Keith Lucas, one of our leading designers. If these men were to go abroad, there would be a tremendous financial loss to this country. The hangars at the Short Bros. factory are 300 ft. wide and the main hangar is 100 ft. high. How could these places be used economically for making machine tools? Is there a market for machine tools or other light engineering products which could be manufactured by this number of employees? How many men do the Government foresee being employed?
    Because doubt has been expressed, I should like to quote two statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) when he was Minister of Aviation in the last Government. As reported in

    509
    HANSARD of 5th March, 1963, my right hon. Friend said:
    "Taken together with the Belfast and Seacat programmes and the sub-contracting work on the VC10, this should provide employment for a production labour force not far below the present level of 6,000 or so until about 1970." —[0FFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 210.]
    That quite clear statement of March, 1963, was repeated on 3rd June, 1964, when my right hon. Friend said that
    "The number at present employed is about 7,300."
    In answer to supplementary questions, my right hon. Friend said:
    "I stand by the earlier statement which I made that the figure of employment will not fall, we think, much below 6,000 for the rest of the decade."
    I asked my right hon. Friend to be more exact and he said:
    "I should not like to be pressed into exact detail, but I should have thought within a few hundreds of 6,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 1068.]
    That was a clear statement of the intention of the former Government to maintain the work for Short's at least until 1970.
    I should like to know the intention of the Government towards these men working at Short Bros. and Harland. This is an industry which is ideally suited to Northern Ireland. Freight costs are minimal because all the products of the company have a high labour content. There is a dock on one side of the factory and an airport on the other. The fact that the finished production has a high labour content is important in an area of high unemployment. Short's have contributed a great deal through their apprenticeship training to skill in Northern Ireland.
    The threat to Short's is immediate. I am told that if alternative work is not found soon, 1,000 men in the factory will become redundant. The experience of the company has been built up not only on the Belfast, but with the first variable swept-wing aircraft, which we have talked about as being the most up to date. It is built in Belfast and there is no criticism of it. The Seacat was designed and is being made at Short Bros. and Harland.
    I should like to set this position alongside the threat to Hawker's and to the
    510
    British Aircraft Corporation. The Government do not seem to recognise the work of men like Keith Lucas and Sir Sydney Camm. Men like that would rather be recognised in the United States than receive the type of shabby treatment that the Labour Party is handing out to them.
    I should like the Government to count the cost of this carefully. They say they are going to save £300 million, and yet they tell us that they are not sure what engine to put into the aircraft. How can the Government be so sure of the cost and the saving? How can they be sure American costs will not escalate as the British do? And why are they selling the British aircraft industry out to our strongest foreign competitors, the Americans, who are so aggressive in their competition with foreign countries? Are we to lose all the by-products of the aircraft industry, such as electronics, miniaturisation, and advanced metallurgy and all the other similar by-products which have put our industrial nation in the forefront of the world?
    I finish by asking the hon. Gentleman. when summing up, to deal more specifically with what the future is to be of the industry. I have read and re-read the White Paper on defence. It leaves so many questions unanswered. There is nothing there about the future, nothing about aiming to keep our design teams and work teams together. I should like to hear some clear, unambiguous statement made now and not be referred again to committees of which we have heard so many times in the past.
    8.11 p.m.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Mr. Leadbitter.
    Mr. Robert Howarth rose—
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter rose
    The Temporary Chairman: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Mr. Howarth.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: It is one of the penalties of being a new Member of the Committee. I must ask more Questions in future and so become better known.
    This is the first debate on Defence Estimates I have had the pleasure of attending, and I have much pleasure in

    511
    attending it. I have found it interesting, though it has contained, I believe, the usual irrelevancies which hon. Members manage to introduce into this type of discussion. I hope I shall not be guilty of that. I shall try to stick very closely to the Question under discussion.
    I like first, to deal with the claim which has been made on two or three occasions by hon. Members opposite when they have asserted that in some way manned aircraft are second strike weapons. According to my understanding of military strategy, manned aircraft are far from that. Surely the Polaris submarine or the I.B.M.s in their silos are really true second strike weapons. To pretend that manned aircraft, vulnerable on the ground, or even in the air for that matter, are anything other than first strike weapons seems to fly in the face of established facts, certainly, I understand, established and accepted by the United States, who seem to have gone into this as deeply as anyone.
    I found the contribution by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) robust in character, so robust that at one time I wondered whether he and his party intended to divide the Committee ultimately on these Estimates. I have, however, been assured by the more experienced and senior Members that they are not likely to do that in any circumstances. Presumably, therefore, a lot of what the hon. Member had to say was not meant for us in this Committee but meant for his eager workers outside.
    I thought that both he and various hon. Members opposite missed the whole point of the various contributions made today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State himself since coming to office, both here and outside in the country. The point my hon. Friend made was that as a relatively small industrial nation—relatively, that is, to the major giants of this world—we cannot entertain development of the whole range of military aircraft in the future; it is beyond our ability. He has pointed out that if we were to maintain the sort of programme initiated, certainly in the last few years, by hon. and right hon. Members opposite we would not only increase the aircraft defence burden in absolute terms, but certainly increase that proportion of the gross national product which we are spending on
    512
    defence, and we believe that the time has come to try to draw a halt to this and to keep the figure at a reasonable level.
    It was significant to me that not once in the speech by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West did he express regret at the extra £45½ million detailed in this statement. When I think what this sort of money could do for housing, the health programme, education, building, new roads, then I must express some amazement that he did not start by regretting increased expenditure of this size on military aircraft and the Services. I believe that his main fault was that he tried to pick out those aspects of the Defence Estimates and statements which suited his argument and tried to cover up the skeletons, arising from past policies, which are the legacy for the present Government.
    Some very good examples can be taken by considering the situation arising from the cancellation of the 681 and P1154. They were decisions which, I believe, were regrettable, but certainly understandable. The main problem was very real. The 681 was likely to come along about 1971 or 1972. I would have thought, in view of our experience over the past two decades of the introduction of military aircraft, that we would have treated those dates with very great reserve. If anything has been learned in the last ten to fifteen years, it is that it is better to add on one or two years to any Government aircraft programme.
    The question, quite naturally, for the new Government was just how long the R.A.F. could be expected to use the Hastings and Beverley aircraft. These are very old aircraft. One wonders whether they may become very shortly a danger to their crews. I do not know. However, we have had an example with the Valiants, now being withdrawn from service because of a defect in their wing spar. They have a lot less use behind them than the Hastings and Beverleys. Therefore, I understand that it was very urgently necessary to find a replacement for at least these two aircraft.
    Mr. Stephen Hastings: May I, as a director of the firm which built the Hastings, assure the hon. Member that it is not going to fall to pieces, and that its shows no sign of it? On the contrary, modification teams are still working on it.
    Mr. Howarth: I am very glad of that assurance, and I accept what the hon. Member has to say, but he will admit, I am sure, that they are really quite old aircraft and really approaching the end of their useful life, and that a replacement is necessary.
    The Belfast strategic freighters will be coming along, but they do have a specific rôle., and there is no doubt that the C130 are aircraft which the R.A.F. would find invaluable. To describe them as obsolete is nonsense. According to my reading of the technical journals, the United States Air Force has no plans for phasing these aircraft out of the forces for the foreseeable future. They seem to be planning the use of this tactical freighter for as many years ahead as normal.
    I hope, however, that the C130 will be soon available. It is most urgently required by our forces, and, therefore, the question of the introduction of new engines to the C130 surely introduces a delay which, I would have thought, would be unacceptable. I can see unfortunate consequences of accepting a new engine, the Tyne, but I must say, from what knowledge I have of the aircraft industry, that the redesigning which this would involve of the C130 wing, by cutting out the Allison engine, would seem to impose a penalty which I would have thought unacceptable, and I hope that my hon. Friend, when replying, will deal with this point.
    I can see the need—so, presumably, can my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—for a VTOL tactical replacement. This is obvious, but it is expecting a lot to suggest that within four or five months of coming into office a new Government should be able to lay on the table all the plans they may have for the future replacement of current aircraft. When one thinks of the time that it took the previous Administration to come to certain decisions—I shall deal with these in a moment—one realises that it is expecting a little too much to ask the Government to give their views on this matter. I accept that a replacement will be necessary, and I assume that this will be done o a the basis of a joint effort with other nations of Western Europe.
    I should like now to deal with the P1154. I believe that the parallel is quite clear with the 681. The Hunter, which has given sterling service to the
    514
    R.A.F. for many years, must be approaching the end of its useful life, and to contemplate sending our Air Force into action against the kind of equipment which nations such as Indonesia possess—supersonic military aircraft provided by Russia—would be suicidal. A replacement is, therefore, urgently necessary for the Hunter, and the decision to cancel the P1154 and to go for a developed version of the P1127, protected above by the Phantom, seems to me a regrettable compromise, but an understandable one.
    I fail to understand why on earth the previous Government did not seize the lead that we had with the 1127 but allowed it to drift along at a slow pace of development for so many years. Criticisms about us losing our lead with VTOL aircraft come ill from hon. Members who allowed us to lose our lead over the world when the 1127 first flew. I believe that that was a tragic example of inaction by the previous Government, and was bitterly resented by the aircraft industry.
    I understand that Hawker Siddeley is optimistic about the export prospects of the Kestrel, the developed version of the 1127. The firm reckons that it has better export prospects than the 1154. Only time will tell, but I am disturbed by the fact that the date quoted this afternoon for the possible introduction of the Kestrel is now 1969 or 1970. If this is the date suggested—and I shall await my hon. Friend's reply to the debate with interest—it seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a valid point when they complain that the difference in the time scale between the 1154 and the 1127 is so small as not to be a valid reason for dropping the 1154.
    When we come to the question of a replacement for the 1154, I believe that the Government are on very strong ground. Last summer I was intrigued when I saw the announcement that the previous Government had decided to replace the Sea Vixen with the Phantom. I was not in the House at the time, and I can only assume that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who at that time were on these benches, rose as one man to protest against the sell-out of the British aircraft industry. Maybe they did.
    Mr. Millan: One or two of them did.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend tells me that one or two did. Whatever happened, it did not have much effect on the Government of the day, because the order went ahead. I might add, as a digression, that I am always rather intrigued at the psuedo-defence of the British aircraft industry by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When there was a sell-out of an important section of the British car industry to American interests, not much was heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    I believe that the decision to order a replacement for the Sea Vixen from the United States was remarkable for a Government which had been in power for about 12½ years. Why did they not go to the British aircraft industry many years earlier and ask it to design and develop a replacement for the Sea Vixen? The criticisms made by hon. Gentlemen opposite today could equally well be made against decisions made when they were in office.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that we should be given more details of the Government's order for the R.A.F. Phantom. Be that as it may, I have never seen details of the numbers ordered for the Royal Navy, or the cost, or when they would be available. It may be that this is because I am new to the House, and the information has been given, or it may be, of course, that these details were never given by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power.
    I am also rather intrigued by the failure of the previous Government to persuade the Navy and the Air Force to order a joint aircraft as a replacement for the Sea Vixen and the Hunter. There was, I thought, a rather sneering reference to McNamara's contribution, but at least he was able to persuade the United States Navy and Air Force to go for the TFX and to order what was basically the same aircraft. It seems to me that by ordering a foreign replacement the Secretary of State for Defence has to some extent succeeded in obtaining a common aircraft for the two Services. Perhaps when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to tell us why it was not possible to order a joint replacement for these two aircraft many years ago.
    If there is one sphere in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are on particularly
    516
    weak ground, it is on the question of a replacement for the Shackleton. This aircraft has been flying for about two decades, and one wonders what on earth was the reason for the delay in ordering a replacement. This aircraft must surely be reaching the end of its useful life. I should have thought that a replacement would have been due to come in, not in 1965, but much earlier, and yet when the new Government decide to take up a project which I understand Hawker Siddeley have been pressing on the Forces for a long time, they are criticised for doing so.
    The suggestion is that we might have considered the Atlantique as an alternative. The Government have chosen a British aircraft, with superior speed, greater range, and superior payload to the Atlantique, and yet they are paid an offhanded compliment by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They seem to want it both ways. Yet it seems to me that the maritime Comet will be an excellent aircraft. I hope that it will take over fairly soon from the Shackleton, which has done a first-class job for so long—far too long.
    I now turn to a question which was referred to by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West in his rather critical remarks about the decision to order the Comet. He seemed to imply that there was an operational requirement in existence which would be better met by the Atlantique than by the Comet. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this point. I shall be interested to know whether this is so, or whether it is merely a case of an advocate clutching at a, straw and trying to make out a case to cheer his troops on. The decisions of the Government have been bold and understandable. To a large extent they were inescapable.
    I now turn to the question of the TSR2. I accept that the Government are trying objectively to assess the merits of this outstanding aircraft. Three obvious questions need to be answered before a decision can be made. First, can this aircraft, which was designed primarily for the European operational requirement, be adapted to fulfil the worldwide conventional rôles which are now being demanded of it? Secondly—and obviously of equal importance—can we afford it? Can the company at least

    517
    give some reasonable indication of the likely final cost of this very complex aircraft? A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting the B.A.C. works to see the TSR2. At one time I used to wonder where all the money went, but when I saw the facilities at the B.A.C. works—and as a mechanical engineer I can appreciate the mechanical side of the matter—I began to appreciate where the money goes in the development of modern military supersonic aircraft. The final question is: can the company indicate firmly when this aircraft will be available to the forces?
    If these questions can be answered favourably it would be unfortunate to make a marginal saving by ordering the TFX. The TSR2 not only extends the frontiers of our knowledge in aviation and in other fields—because of the fallout—but provides employment for many people and, equally important, provides essential industrial backing to the production of the BAC111. If there is one civil aircraft which really offers a prospect of large export sales it is surely the BAC111. This aircraft depends to a great extent upon the work load carried by the B.A.C. factories which are manufacturing the TSR2.
    I hope that the final decision will be favourable to the TSR2, provided that the answers to the questions that I have raised are positive. A decision not to go ahead with the TSR2 could cripple the prospects of the BAC111. That factor must be taken into account. To let our orders for a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft go to the United States would deliver a serious blow to the aircraft industry.
    The omission of any reference to helicopters was very significant in the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. No wonder! If there is one aspect of this matter which illustrates the failure of hon. Members opposite, after 13 years of complete power, both to meet the needs of the nation and to contribute to our economic wellbeing, it is the question of helicopters. After 13 years of government by hon. Members opposite we have to go to a United States-Italian helicopter for the Army, and B.E.A. has to buy an American helicopter for civil use.
    518
    Other than the Scout and the Wasp, no indigenous helicopter is available for civil and military use. I fail to understand why some of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on projects that have been cancelled by hon. Members opposite—projects which were listed in "Flight International" of 4th February, involving the sum of £200 million in the last 12 years—could not have been devoted to the development of helicopters for civil and military use. This is certainly no credit to hon. Members opposite.
    It has meant that our forces, particularly in the existing situation in the Far East, are short of suitable helicopters—this is not denied by anyone—and that our military operations are suffering accordingly. I suggest, therefore, that on that score alone the case advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite falls.
    Because of the jibes from some hon. Members opposite, may I express my general support for the efforts of the Government to bring what I believe anyone would consider sanity and control into our defence policy? I regret the tremendous sums which still have to be spent on defence. I accept that much money will have to be spent until such time as we have effective U.N. peacekeeping, which would give the sort of protection that we are forced to provide at present for ourselves. I believe that the Government have taken the first difficult steps towards applying the principles of cost effectiveness to defence matters in a sensible and progressive way.
    8.36 p.m.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to concentrate primarily on the question of aircraft procurement, and specifically on the purchase of the Lockheed C130. There are some serious questions which I wish to ask the Minister of State, and it is sufficiently early for the hon. Gentleman to secure the answers before the end of the debate. When the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend entered into an agreement with the American Government and the Lockheed Company to supply C130s, did he, before doing so, get an undertaking that British engines would be installed in those aircraft at a given price which was acceptable to the British Government, if the British Government so

    519
    wanted? I would hazard rather more than a guess that the answer is "No". Neither his right hon. Friend nor those commissioned to enter into the negotiations got any such undertaking from the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. The result is that the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation can put the screws on the British Government.
    The United States, as well as Lock-heeds, wish to sell the greatest possible proportion of American equipment to this country. If there is any doubt about that I should like to quote Mr. Henry J. Kuss, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence:
    "The overseas expenditures of U.S. forces in the last few years constituted a drain on our international balance of payments in an amount approximately equal to the deficiency. One of the major actions taken by this Administration to offset this deficiency was the promotion of military exports consistent with our political economic objectives to meet the defence objective of our Allies."
    In the same context, it is interesting to note that the United States military exports accelerated from approximately 400 million dollars in 1960—what the Americans would call ·4 billion—within two years, by 1962 to 1·600 million dollars, a 400 per cent. acceleration. When the former Conservative Government ordered Phantoms for the Navy, they specified that British engines must be in them, otherwise the deal was not on, and thereby, with modest increase in price, got the prime manufacturer to redesign the aircraft to take the British engines. Now we have got out the begging bowl. The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend has committed this country to buying this aircraft before Lockheeds had committed themselves to undertake the redesign and development work at a reasonable figure. That is why an astronomic sum has been quoted by the Lockheed Company to the British Government to alter the aircraft so that it can take British engines. Lest anybody should think that this is a purely jingoistic approach, may I point out—
    Mr. Millan: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, because I shall be replying to him when I wind up, but everything which he has said up to now has been completely inaccurate.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I suspect, in that case, that the hon. Gentleman is grossly
    520
    misinformed, possibly because he did not take part in the negotiations. What will this aircraft be? When the statement was made by his right hon. Friend, the Government did not know whether the Hercules would have a British engine or not. Today, the hon. Gentleman said that the aircraft would be the same one which was going into service with the American Air Force. Demonstrably, it will be the same one only if it has the same engine, because if this aircraft is re-equipped with a Rolls-Royce engine, even if it is derated to 4,000 h.p. on takeoff so that the aircraft does not fall to pieces, it will have a superior performance to the aircraft as it will go into service with the American Armed Forces. So it will in no way be the same aeroplane.
    Secondly, is he aware that the developed Allison engine—to which reference has been made as if it were already in service—is not in service? It has had approximately 500 hours of development flying time. It has caused considerable trouble. It has nearly gassed some of the aircrew because the air bled off for pressurising the aircraft is contaminated with oil because of the oil sealing system which General Motors employ. Is he aware that its air-cooled turbine blades are made by a company which has no previous experience whatsoever of air-cooled turbine blades, and that they are not even forged blades, they are cast blades? Yet he talks of this completely undeveloped project as if it were a developed project of which there is service experience, and as if we can depend on a date of introduction which is not a gleam in the eye but a fixed date. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has even learned what questions to ask of his professional advisers, let alone ensure that he gets the proper answers from them.
    There is more in this than just delivery dates. Does he want to introduce into the Royal Air Force yet another engine type, for which maintenance spares must be held at R.A.F. depots all over the world, an engine, moreover, of not only a make but a design which is completely foreign, which the existing dynamometers will not fit, and in which most of the threads are American threads rather than British threads? In other words, the consumer spares will be unique to it. Is he aware that the aeroplane itself will have to be structurally modified to take this

    521
    Allison engine, because not only is it an old design, it is a ropey old design? Does he bear in mind that it is produced by a company which succeeded in killing nearly three times as many people as were killed in the Comet I disasters, because the wings came off the Lockheed Electras due to wing flutter, the parameters of which were known in 1935?
    Yet he has the effrontery to call this an up-to-date aeroplane. It is nothing of the kind. It is a clapped-out old aeroplane which is being revamped by installing in it engines too powerful for it and which have not yet been developed. This is what is offered to us as a developed and tested aeroplane, to be delivered on a fixed date, so that the magic gap is closed. It has taken the brilliance of the Labour Party Front Bench to perceive this as a wonderful piece of military equipment which is waiting on the shelf to be bought. The Minister has been taken for a ride, and so have his right hon. Friends, and so have the Royal Air Force.
    This is not to say that one could not make a case for leasing a limited number of aircraft. This, incidentally, is what any competent airline does if it finds itself short of major aircraft types between the runout of one, and the arrival of another. What does it do? It does what B.O.A.C. and other major airlines have done before now. If they find themselves temporarily short of capacity, they lease it.
    But to present these clapped-out aircraft at the end of the development line and equipped with the Allison engine without considerable structural modifications as God's gift to the Royal Air Force and the culmination of the Labour Party's determination to advance into the new technological era would be accepted only by very simple souls as a contribution to the defence of the country, and to its economy.
    If we take the American engines we shall be spending more than another 90 million dollars. I put a Question to the First Secretary asking how he is going to increase British exports to cover the cost of these American aircraft. I received a ridiculous reply to the effect that since our trade was multilateral rather than bilateral the question would not arise—as if the aircraft did not have to be paid for because of our indulging in multilateral trade. The understanding
    522
    of the First Secretary of State is outside the scope of the Estimates—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
    8.48 p.m.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was drawing to the end of my observations on the C130 aircraft. I was trying to point out once again the tremendous distinction that there is, and must be, between getting one's price-guarantees before one enters into a contract, and going along cap-in-hand after one has already entered into a contract, and asking the other side to be charitable and merciful and not to do what their own Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence says he wants them to do—asking them to cut their own throats by taking one's engine rather than their own. Does anybody imagine that this is the way to get a proper deal for the Britisth taxpayer? Of course not.
    Not only will there be more than 90 million dollars extra that we must earn by increased exports if we get the American engine; not only will the aircraft have a worse performance if we get the American engine, but, worse still, we shall have thrown away yet another opportunity for co-operation with our fellow members of N.A.T.O. It is interesting to note that if these aircraft were now re-engined with Roll-Royce Tyne engines, those engines would be made by the N.A.T.O. consortium, which consists of Hispano-Suiza, M.A.N. in Germany, and Rolls-Royce. So this would be in line with both the policy so strongly recommended by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the declared policy of the Government in entering as far as we can into joint projects with our fellow members of N.A.T.O.
    I cannot for the life of me see why, before the Government announced the order for this aircraft, they did not get Lockheed's assent, as a condition to the contract being placed, to redesign the aircraft to take Rolls-Royce Tyne engines at a very modest fee indeed. Lockheed would then have had to have done that if it wanted the order, instead of which the Government announced the order and threw away their own

    523
    case. Incidentally, as the power-plant would have been substantially that which is already constructed and designed for the Belfast, a lot of work would have been saved. Short's, which desperately needs work, could then get work for something like 350 power plants, which would be very useful indeed during the rundown to which the Government seem to have condemned Short's.
    From every aspect which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite look at this, this project has much to commend it, yet they still have not decided whether or not to go ahead with it. The only argument I have heard put forward for what I would call the vamped-up, clapped-out aircraft—that is, the C130, with completely untested and undeveloped engines—the development of the Allison T-56—is that it will enable Lockheed to deliver the aircraft at a rate which is suitable to Lockheed, but quite in advance of the capacity of the R.A.F. to train flight crews for them.
    Even this does not seem a particularly good reason for taking the American engine, purely for the convenience of General Motors, which makes these engines, the American Government, who want the foreign exchange, and Lockheed, which finds this a convenient rate at which to manufacture the aircraft.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has several times referred to the C130 as being clapped-out. I presume that he is describing it as such because of the age of the aircraft.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop indicated dissent.
    Mr. Howarth: Perhaps its performance? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on that basis, the R.A.F. has been using aircraft which have seen longer service than the C130?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was referring to it as being clapped-out for a much more fundamental reason: that it will not even take an engine of 4,200 h.p. without a lot of strengthening work having to be done to it. I call an aeroplane clapped-out, not merely if it is in the last stages of physical fatigue, but also if it is so obsolescent that it cannot take the normal power increases which one expects to come in the development
    524
    life of an aeroplane without severe structural modifications. That is the situation which obtains in the case of the C130. It may be clapped-out in the other sense as well, but obviously one would not expect a brand new aircraft being manufactured by the Lockheed Company to be clapped-out in the sense that the rivets were loose and that the whole plane was falling apart.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: By that definition, the Shackletons, Hastings, and Beverleys are clapped-out as well.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, because I am not aware that anybody has contemplated re-engining the Hastings. It would be a ludicrous and inefficient thing to do, which does not mean that the present Government might not want to do it.
    The Shackleton has had quite an interesting development life. I think I am right in saying that not many years have passed since South Africa took a load of brand new ones. The engine which powers it has been developed on several occasions, but if one compares the C130 with, for example, the Belfast one finds that whereas the Belfast's design enables that aircraft to benefit from the development of the power plant—for example, by fitting a larger propeller—that is precisely what the C130 design does not enable one to do. That is why one is entitled to call it a clapped-out design. That is exactly what it is. Incidentally, the original engine with which it was fitted was not a very clever design, but, then, the Allison Division of General Motors is what one might call the runt of the litter.
    Two of the largest American aero-engine firms were chased out of business by Rolls-Royce—I refer to Curtiss-Wright, and Westinghouse; and the aero-engine division of General Motors just hung on by its fingernails sustained by licenses bought at considerable cost from this country. Even so, they are now producing a version of the T-56. Anybody who has followed the development of the engine for the Concord to date will be aware of the difficulties—I will put it no more strongly than that—accompanying any manufacturer who, for the first time, goes into the technical sphere of production of which he has no previous experience. It would therefore surprise me if

    525
    the Allison division of General Motors, which is quite the tiniest of the American aero-engine firms, produced an engine with air-cooled cast-iron turbine blades which was not troublesome for a considerable time.
    I would not go so far as to say we would be happy watching the U.S. Air Force suffering all the teething troubles, but that is no reason for us voluntarily to share them, when we could use the Tyne. This thoroughly developed engine is in service in the Vanguard and Breguet Atlantique, and will also go into service in the Belfast and the N.A.T.O.-sponsored Transall.
    Therefore, we could have a well-developed engine giving a far superior performance, whether we think in terms of take-off run, the load that can be carried, the ferrying range, specific fuel consumption, or performance with one engine out on a particularly long stage like Cyprus-Bahrain in high temperature conditions. From whichever angle we look at it, it is a superior proposition, as well as from the point of view of the Treasury. Why, then, did it not occur to the Minister of Aviation—or, if it did occur why did he not do something about it—to make sure that this was all tied up before he threw in the whole pack of cards by announcing the order? There are many other aspects that I would like to cover, but as I know that there are also a considerable number of my hon. Friends who also want to address the Committee, I will confine myself to what I have already said.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: During the debate, and particularly when the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) was speaking, I was satisfied that a serious note was being struck. I think that all hon. Members will agree that in dealing with questions of the Royal Air Force, and of the Armed Forces generally, we are involving ourselves in something paramount to the interests of the country. Since the hon. Member spoke some three hours ago, however, I have noted a spot of frivolity, and when we are dealing with the defence of the country, particularly in a world as turbulent as this is at the moment, I have no room for frivolity or for making political points.
    526
    We are discussing the Defence (Air) Estimates, and I have been rather surprised in the last few hours to hear so little said about the Estimates themselves. Only a short while ago we debated the aircraft industry. The Minister of Aviation placed before the House an irrefutable case for the reviews and changes which he then outlined. It will be agreed by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and hon. Members on both sides that practically all that there is in the Estimates is the consequence of the last Administration. Therefore, there is no justification for hon. Members opposite to criticise, unless at the same time they confess. When I studied the Defence Estimates I certainly felt alarmed. However, we cannot but come to the conclusion, in the words of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), who was Under-Secretary of State for Air in the last Government, that a number of financial pressures had to be taken into account.
    The job of this Government is to try to relate their responsibility for our defence, our obligations to N.A.T.O., and our obligations in Europe and in the Far East to our ability to pay. The priorities are most important. We can buy ourselves out of court and have an education system which is not comparable with the demands of the modern age and is incapable, possibly, of producing the technicians we require, even for the aircraft industry. We must have a proper apportionment of the national wealth for schools, houses, hospitals—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate his remarks to the Air Estimates and not speak as though it were a general debate on defence.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I take your point, Mr. Grant-Ferris. I was merely trying to place the Estimates in relief in relation to the apportionment of the national wealth. Last year the then Under-Secretary of State for Air said:
    "The pressure of finance and the necessity to keep the front line intact have necessitated the most efficient and ruthless use of available resources. In the last year alone, 5,000 Service posts have been pruned and 14 stations closed down. Nevertheless, with personnel costs of all kinds, including civilians, in the coming financial year amounting to no less than 48 per cent. of the Air Estimates it will be realised that there must be constant pressure to see

    527
    that organisation is right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1250.]
    The last words are highly important. I would not accept that responsible Members of Parliament would minimise the responsibility to ensure that organisation is right. Bearing that in mind, and according to the hon. Member for Harwich the respect to which he was entitled, I cannot help reminding the Committee that only a few days ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on another subject indicated that right hon. Members opposite during their Administration were responsible for a rundown in the aircraft industry of 13 per cent., broke a promise to the industry in the sense that 26 projects were cancelled, and themselves placed the order in America for the Phantoms. In view of this, hon. Members opposite should give this Government credit for carrying out their responsibility in such a way that they are succeeding where right hon. Members opposite failed.
    Admittedly, when right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in charge of the country's affairs they had trying problems to grapple with. Certainly they had difficulty in finding solutions. But it is not responsible of hon. Members opposite, after only 16 weeks of office in this Parliament, to charge us with responsibility for all the ills, the adversities and difficulties which they themselves failed to meet. I cannot go so far as to say that there has been any act of irresponsibility on their part, but I am stating the fact that over a number of years this trying problem was not resolved. Neither will it be resolved in the next few years because we all know that from the planning board to the final stage many years have to pass during which the original plans have to be altered. On questions of defence, even when we discuss them within the terms of the Air Estimates, or of any other Vote, for that matter, there must be unity in the House if we are really sincere about the defence of this country.
    I said a little earlier that I was alarmed about the Estimates. There has been a failure to provide voluntary recruitment in certain areas of our defence commitment. I think that case has been made out. There has also been, if not a failure, certainly not a success, in providing the weapons and the equipment, and in this
    528
    case the aircraft, which are necessary to carry out the tasks to be undertaken by our forces.
    Looking at the expenditure during the past two or three years in terms of the Estimates, we find that in 1963–64 £1,138 million were spent. I am speaking of the total Estimates because it is against them that I want to discuss the Air Estimates. A year later the expenditure increased to £1,198 million. This involved an increase of 8·7 per cent. or, as I understand it, a 5 per cent. increase in real terms. This situation has been inherited, and we are still discussing the conditions and the circumstances which were responsible for those Estimates. There is a carry-through, and this year there is an increase of some 8·1 per cent.
    The significant thing about this increase in the expenditure, apart from our responsibility to try to keep it as low as possible commensurate with our responsibilities at home and abroad and our social and economic circumstances at home, is that there was an assumption in 1963 that the Estimates should grow by only 3½ per cent. There was a further assumption on the basis of a 4 per cent. growth in the national wealth. We are now discussing matters concerning the welfare of the R.A.F. personnel, and, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said, their job is to fight. It is within this context that the equipment supplied to these men is vitally important, and that it shall be reliable to meet modern needs so that efficiency can bring about confidence. Indeed, this is the least that the R.A.F. personnel ought to expect. But we did not achieve either the 3½ per cent. growth in the Estimates or the 4 per cent. growth in the national wealth to meet it. This is a sad reflection on the country.
    I want to condition what I have said because I am trying to be fair and not recriminatory in my language. I have already listened to talk in the debate about the nuclear bomb and the V-bombers and I really believe that neither side of the Committee wants the nuclear bomb. I say this openly and sincerely. All that is between us is a matter of degree, of when and how, and I hope that the Committee will persist in getting together and uniting to discover the how so that we may determine the when.
    I say within the context of the Air Estimates that it will be a sad day for

    529
    England and for the world if by any chance we pursue a course which will mean that we shall have to use nuclear weapons and then find that what we fought for in the beginning has ceased to exist and that those who come out best are not the victors but the vanquished, the latter finding peace in silence and the former torment in contemplation of the future.
    But we must look at the future not in despair but with a sense of responsibility. We must address ourselves man to man across the Floor of this Chamber and ask ourselves whether we have been obtaining value for money. On this subject we could sling across the Floor words which could anger. The question can pose an answer in the mind of each of us. I know that the answer in mine is, "Certainly not." Costs have been outstripping our capacity to pay. It seems sad in this age that £20,000 million has been spent without producing results.
    We would not be discussing this subject in this way if we were all happy about the defence of the country. Is it not sad, having spent £20,000 million, and failed to do what we wanted to do, to think that we might have invested the money far better in those regions of the country where people are crying out for work?
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Whatever the hon. Member says about the last 13 years, would he not agree that at any rate the most important thing has been achieved and that is peace in the world?
    Mr. Leadbitter: It may be all right for those of us who are enjoying peace, but I am not satisfied about the peace which I enjoy. Peace in the world is so much suspended on a thread that sometimes I feel ashamed that, after our having fought two world wars, my parents before me and my children today still are without the answers and that we have so much trouble in the world. Let us not be so certain. Let us think of Indonesia at the moment.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I was hoping that he was drawing these remarks to a close and I did not wish to interrupt. But he is straying from the subject before us, which is the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I agree, Mr. Grant-Ferris, but I was answering a question put by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order, Mr. Grant-Ferris. Surely in Indonesia the R.A.F. is operating and the cost of the aircraft is in the Estimates.
    The Temporary Chairman: That may be so, but the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) was seeking to go wider in his remarks than the strict terms of order dictate.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Grant-Ferris.
    I have posed two questions and now I come to the third. Is there any evidence that the Royal Air Force has not been provided with what has been needed in the right place at the right time? This is what we have been discussing in the last few weeks. If there is such evidence, let us recognise it. Within the terms of that evidence, I am satisfied that there is evidence—an abundance of it over the years—that we have not been getting what we have needed for the forces, the defence of the country and our commitments abroad at the right time and in the right place.
    Attention has been drawn to the decline of manpower in the R.A.F. and I note with some concern that in 1963–64 the Estimates catered for a maximum of 143,000 personnel and that in the following year they included a maximum of 140,000. The Estimates before us include a maximum of 136,000. The signficance is that, in these Estimates, there is the figure of £281 million for aircraft and stores compared with £244 million for the previous year. It is to be seen, therefore, that some £37 million goes to equipment and stores out of a total increase of £45 million.
    There are various headings—officers and personnel, reserves and auxiliary services, civilians at outstations and meterological offices and within the terms of those headings such things as training, educational services, allowances abroad and so forth. The attention of the Committee might be drawn to the fact that only a very small amount of the increase is spread over a wide range of the social responsibilities wthin the Service itself. Bearing in mind the manpower figures I

    531
    have mentioned, the adult strength of the R.A.F. has fallen from 127,276 to 123,051 in one year. The major part of the reduction in personnel is in adult strength. We must evolve better incentives and inducements to attract the personnel we need. This has been said many times, but little seems to have been done about it.
    Vote 1A deals with education allowances. The total for airmen and airwomen in 1964–65 was £262,000 and the estimated figure for 1965–66 is £320,000, an increase of £58,000, or 22 per cent. The amount for officers is higher. I hope that in saying that I shall not be accused of making any imputation. As an ex-officer myself, I would be most disturbed if any wrong interpretation were placed on what I have to say about this matter. These items are under different heads and it is easier to keep them that way. Education allowances for officers were £950,000 last year and are estimated at £1,185,000 for this year, an increase of £235,000, or 24 per cent.
    I am prepared for more experienced hon. Members to say that my deductions are wrong, but it seems to me that in these debates we must talk not only about equipment, important as that may be—and I have listened with patience and, I hope, understanding to what has been said about that subject today—but about those items of the Estimates which affect the daily lives of the men and women in the Services. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say that sufficient attention is given to this part of the problem. It may be that because of the magnitude of the Government's immediate problems, far too much emphasis has had to be placed on the equipment side, highly important though that is, at the expense of considering the necessary incentives for getting personnel into the Service.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: As after considerable provocation you stopped the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) from the more theological aspects of his speech, Mr. Grant-Ferris, I will not endeavour to follow him in that, apart from saying that, as all hon. Members opposite invariably have done, he kept on blaming all the peculiarly inept decisions of the Government on to the past 13 years. There is nothing new about this. When the 1945–50 Government
    532
    started getting into an awful mess—which, to give them credit, took them 18 months as against the four months which is all that these people have required—they used to talk solidly about 20 years of Tory misrule. That lasted them up to 1951, and no further. This time they have started so much earlier on the "13 wasted years", and I reckon that it will last them until next October, and no further.
    I must now return to the Air Estimates. We are here dealing with what is the dominant arm in our national defence. I say this with every expectation sooner or later of finding a flotilla of ex-naval officers descending on me from this side.
    I am not decrying the other Services—they have their function in the defence of the realm—but I want to draw attention to the fact—I hope you will forgive a mild digression, Mr. Grant-Ferris—that, as was pointed out the other day, an aircraft carrier, with all its attendant ships required to keep it at sea, costs well over £50 million, the cost of about 20 TSR2s, which the Government cannot make up their mind to have. It takes only one TSR2 to sink an aircraft carrier. That is the way in which we must consider this matter.
    I am distressed to find that of all the three Services the R.A.F. is the only one in which it is planned to make a reduction in manpower next year, although admittedly it is small. I also noted, which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools should also note, that there is a very considerable increase in the cost of civilian personnel. I am not sure that we are not doing what was done before—getting rid of one soldier and employing two expensive civilians to do his job. We want to keep a very close eye on this sort of thing.
    This dominant arm was inherited after 13 years. Apparently, according to hon. Members opposite, some person of genius succeeded in clearing all the files so that no notes were left of what had happened in the past 13 years and the Government had to make their own decisions in the last four months without any information about what had gone before. But even hon. Members opposite can read, and they had the necessary information on which to make their decisions.

    533
    What decisions did they make concerning the Royal Air Force? I often wonder who was their major adviser. Is it true that the strategic genius of the Government is the Paymaster-General? If so, the depth of strategic reserve in the Army Education Corps must be far greater than I ever met in my personal experience. If it is true, we are faced with this rather curious proposition, that the unfortunate Royal Air Force, instead of springing like Athene ready armed from the head of Zeus, is springing wholly disarmed out of the Prime Minister's "Wigg".
    There is a false conception of the functions of our defence forces among hon. Members opposite. The result of this false conception is enlarged and forced unemployment in my constituency to which I propose briefly to refer because it impinges on the lives of many people for whose welfare I consider myself partly responsible. The Hawker-Siddeley factory a t Bitteswell is shut. The factory at Baginton is practically shut. These men are now out of work. During the Nuneaton by-election, the Minister of Technology promised that they would all be absorbed without any trouble in neighbouring industries. The nearest industry to Bitteswell is the stocking factory at Hinckley. Is it proposed to move these aircraft workers across to knit hosiery? If so, I see little chance of that being very much of a success.
    The other solution which I believe his been put forward is that the factory at Baginton should be turned over to making prefabricated Swedish houses which, I am told, will use up the factory space because prefabricated houses take up a great deal of room. I am told that this would employ 200 workers on a three-shift basis for the best part of 18 months. That is the proposed alternative for about 6,000 men. That is not good defence policy. It is not even good economics.
    These men have spent their lives in the aircraft industry. Most of them are not young men. They have houses around their factory. Where are they to go? What is the good of suggesting that they can be absorbed elsewhere and that large drafts can be transferred to the North-East Coast to make something else? This is a typical example
    534
    of what might be called the intellectual approach to any human problem: that men are not men but are units of labour and that units of labour are just as easily transferable from one place to another as units of anything else. It is an inhuman policy and I sincerely hope that, even at this late stage, we may be able to save something from the wreckage that the Government are creating.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Does the hon. Member recall that after the war we had this problem on a much larger scale than it exists now in Rugby? We redeployed many millions of people into new, peace-time industry. Does the hon. Member think that we will never be in a position in which it is possible to get away from the large armaments programme that we have now?
    Mr. Wise: I must be excused from probing too far into the future. I am saying that we cannot possibly get away from it now, nor is it desirable in the interest of national defence that we should even try to do so. It is true that after the war we were able to absorb vast numbers of men. Industry had practically come to a standstill. There was an overwhelming demand for a large number of products and it was perfectly possible then, not to redeploy, but to reabsorb people more or less in places from which they had come. That is very different from picking out middle-aged men who own their houses and drafting them arbitrarily throughout the country. There is no serious resemblance between the two.
    What is the result of the thinking in the void which the Government have done on the Royal Air Force? As we have heard, they have scrapped a number of aircraft which were getting ready for production and which would have put this country an air generation ahead of any other country.
    We had an eloquent exposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), which is not likely to be satisfactorily answered from the Government Front Bench, about the inferiority of the replacements which the Royal Air Force will get. We have been told by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force that

    535
    the P1154 would not have been ready until 1971. The jigs are made. They are complete. I do not believe that a little zeal could not have speeded up production and got this aircraft into action as soon as any possible aircraft which we are likely to get from elsewhere of equivalent performance. Now, the P1154 is a dead duck. It would have been an aircraft without parallel in the armed forces of the world. We shall only get it now if, somehow, some brilliant man succeeds in selling the jigs to America so that we can waste more dollars in buying the aircraft from the Americans when they have made it. That is not sound sense or economics.
    The HS681 is a military freighter which would have covered about the next three air generations. In exchange for it, we are to get what my hon. Friend has described as a clapped-out aircraft. I shall not be as extreme as he. All I shall say is that the aircraft as we know it is wholly out of date. The Under-Secretary told us that the aircraft which we are likely to get has not yet been completed. It has not even been decided what engines it will have and, as far as I can see, it is not likely to be in service any earlier than we could have put the HS681 into service. The only difference is in performance. The HS681 is perfectly designed for all the needs, not of the United States Services but of our Services.
    As to the other aircraft which we are to get in exchange, the Minister of Defence recently got up at the Box and said, "What is wrong with it? We can get it to within 100 sea miles of almost anywhere we want our stuff to go." Wonderful. How does it go on from there? In triremes or wheelbarrows? Really, to suggest that as an alternative to our own freighter aircraft is too absurd even from a Socialist Government.
    Even if there were a delay in HS681, which I doubt there need be, was it not possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said, to replace it with one of the Short products? Was it not even possible to order a few Argosies to tide the thing over? The Argosy is a very adequate freighter aircraft, and a cheap freighter aircraft. There is nothing wrong in getting a temporary machine till we are ready with a really perfect one.
    536
    There are two alternatives, and in view of our balance of payments problem would it not be better, even at slightly increased cost—and I am not at all sure there would be increased cost—to spend this money in sterling and not waste dollars, which we have to earn with considerable difficulty, against, of course, a protective system and the most extraordinary and ingenious system of protective measures? American salesmanship is one thing; I only admire their capacity and skill and absolute ruthlessness in what they do; but I do not think it is necessary that we should allow this sort of thing to be done on us. We have had this difficulty before. The American lobby, as it has been known, I believe, in flying circles in B.O.A.C., very nearly did us out of the VC10. It tried extremely hard to do it.
    I have heard curious rumours of a certain gentleman who advises the Labour Party on aircraft policy. I have heard that he wrote a report about what is regarded, I am told, by progressive circles as almost the bible of what to do about military aircraft. I am also told that that report lays it down that all aircraft and missile projects in the United Kingdom should be stopped at once and that we should manufacture solely on licence from the United States.
    Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that American sales pressure in the last four years was such that we were obliged to drop Blue Streak and buy Polaris?
    Mr. Wise: Really, Blue Streak is still going on, to start with, and Polaris is being made in this country, so if American sales pressure was really exerted about that it has in fact failed. In any case I was not talking of either of those. I was concentrating, curiously enough, on the Air Estimates, to which Polaris is hardly relevant.
    We should like to know whether this report is the basis of Government thinking, if thinking it can be called, because we do need to have this clear statement in order that we may successfully propagand against it.
    Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly give the name of this gentleman who is said so to have informed us on this side?
    Mr. Wise: I do not see any particular reason why I should, because, after all, he is not a Member of this Committee, but I am informed that it is a Mr. Worcester, who is an aircraft consultant of some kind.
    Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I think I was perfectly justified in asking the question, because the imputation was that we were merely puppets dancing to his tune.
    Mr. Wise: I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman is merely a puppet, and because of his intervention, I am even more convinced of it.
    The last of these aircraft which has been imperilled by the Government's policy is the TSR2. I am not going into the details. It is an unparalleled aircraft. I am told that the latest Government thinking is that they propose to acquire a reduced number of these aircraft. This is typical of Socialist economics. All it can do is to increase the price per aircraft to an astronomical figure. It is obvious that the price per aircraft will be lowered if they order what the R.A.F. want, rather than have a series of samples at the most expensive price.
    It is also said that we may acquire an American aircraft which is untested, which is years behind the TSR2, and of course even when fully in service, if it ever is, will not do any of the things which the TSR2 is designed to do. I am convinced that if we want a strike reconnaissance aircraft, it will be better to give the R.A.F. a plane in which the pilots will have a chance of survival after a mission, rather than one in which they will not.
    We are told that all these economies will save £50 million. This is just about the cost of the free prescriptions. Is it really worth while exchanging an efficient Royal Air Force for a few false teeth? I do not think that it is. If we want to economise, there is one possible way of doing so and by this method we can save foreign exchange as well. At the moment we have a large Air Force contingent stationed on the Continent of Europe. I cannot see why this is particularly necessary. I can see some argument, though not very much, for keeping the Army there, although we have managed to get ourselves into two European wars without having any soldiers on the Continent to start with. If the R.A.F. has to undertake
    538
    a defensive rôle in N.A.T.O., all it needs in Europe is a few landing grounds and opportunities for refuelling. Why cannot the main force be kept in this country, where it can be paid for in sterling and where there will not be this constant drain of foreign exchange for which we do not get a very large direct return?
    The Prime Minister did his best the other day, so we are told, to get some agreement with the German Government which would be wholly satisfactory and make us all happy again. As far as I know, the Prime Minister has committed this country to a rather dangerous programme in backing German reunification to the hilt, but he has got nothing whatever in return, not even the vaguest promise to buy enough British goods to offset the cost—
    The Chairman: Order. I am listening with interest to the hon. Member, but he must get back to the Air Force Estimates.
    Mr. Wise: I agree, Dr. King, but I was making the point that we could save some foreign exchange by stationing the R.A.F. here, and not in Germany. Having made the point, I will pass from it.
    I have become extraordinarily tired of this business of the last 13 years. It is not an excuse. It is just an ordinary straight bleat, and a bleat which comes well from a party which is as well disciplined as the party opposite. Its members precede their sheepdogs so closely.
    I would like to vote against the Estimates, but that might be misinterpreted by people outside. I am not in the least against adequate defences; I am against wasting vast amounts of money on foreign aircraft which are of little use to us while, at the same time, we are putting out of jobs large numbers of British workmen who should be making aircraft which would be of use to us.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: I am rather shocked at some of the things that I have heard in this debate, and which have arisen out of the fact that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) ordered Phantom aircraft from the United States. We are debating Estimates which were prepared on the basis of the last financial year.

    539
    There must be continuity, and so these are the Estimates for the next financial year. We are debating whether they are justified.
    The first question that we must ask is whether we are getting the best equipment for our Air Force—our airmen who may be called upon to defend this island. As a taxpayer I hope that every other British taxpayer who loves this country will be prepared to pay a reasonable proportion of his taxes to ensure that the Army, Air Force and Navy have the best equipment which can be procured. That is what we are all trying to do. I believe that the right hon. Member for Monmouth was trying to do it, and I am certain that my hon. Friends are trying to do it.
    I do not know one good aircraft from another, but I hope I have sufficient common sense to realise that to procure and design aircraft, while at the same time achieving the greatest economies and keeping our troops equipped at the highest level, is a very difficult problem. If we introduce the heat of politics into a debate on the equipment of our forces lots of loose words are used. We are not debating policy; we are debating the cost of equipment, and if we get too heated we use phrases that read very badly and do not make much contribution to the provision of equipment for our forces.
    This talk about not using foreign equipment is stupid. It is said that if we buy equipment from foreign countries they know the secrets of our equipment. In 1939 I worked for 16 hours a day tooling up the Bren gun, developed in Czechoslovakia at the Skoda works, then under the control of Germany. We armed our troops with those guns. They were the best guns in the world. We did not care who designed them, or where they were made. If I were serving in Her Majesty's Forces I should want the best equipment, irrespective of where it was made.
    I do not think that the men who command the Royal Air Force are so stupid or disloyal as not to seek to advise the political heads of the Department to get the best possible aircraft in order to keep the Air Force fully equipped and manned to fulfil to the best of its capacity whatever operations are required of it in any part of the world.
    540
    The right hon. Member for Monmouth ordered the Phantom aircraft for the Royal Navy. I do not criticise that. I have no doubt that he was justified. That was his advice. But it was an American aircraft. I resent it when hon. Members opposite try to pretend that hon. Members on this side are criticising the quality of British aircraft when we say that the aircraft in service in our squadrons today are inferior to those in service in American, French or Russian squadrons.
    This may be said without impugning the quality of our own manufactures. The fact is that throughout the world the whole system of the evolution and development of aircraft means that very often in military respects and in naval considerations—I do not see how they can be divided when they are acting on a national basis—we cannot escape a situation in which a project may come off the drawing board, and a short time later another design team may product something which is an improvement. Aircraft design teams working all over the world have a pretty good knowledge of what the other teams are doing, and the direction in which aerodynamics is moving. I do not believe that design teams in Belfast, Clifton, Bristol, or in America work in isolation. A good deal of international knowledge is circulated.
    In this age, when technology and science are advancing so rapidly, it is inevitable that the nations of the West must experience overlapping and excessive costs in respect of national economies and defence forces because they are acting independently in many respects, or have been for many years, in the sphere of defence. I believe, and some hon. Members may agree with me, that the greatest deterrent to an attack on this country would be a united defensive system with our allies. If the entente cordiale among the allies of the West, including the United States, had been more in evidence we might not have experienced two world wars. It may be that the security of the West depends more on the unity and co-ordination of the nations of the West than on individuals and independent and powerful air forces, armies and navies.
    Mr. Wise: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I say that it does not

    541
    depend on their exact geographical position. There is no need to have forces sitting on the ground in the countries we propose to defend.
    Mr. Bence: I will come to that. I believe there must be some integration and co-operation between Britain, France, and the United States in the development and evolution of the new highly technological equipment which is necessary for the arming of our troops and the defence of our country. I do not believe that we should act completely independently. I think there has been a great deal of co-operation with the United States and I hope that there will be increasing co-operation with France so that together the countries of the West may economise and lighten the heavy burden of expenditure which is carried by the people of this country and of other European countries, because there is a certain amount of duplication in research and design.
    I can understand the nineteenth century concept, and the desire to feel independent, to have a Royal Air Force equipped entirely from British factories, and military equipment which had been produced entirely by our own industries. That was right and proper in an age when often we might have to stand alone, but I do not think that we should have to stand alone today. I do not believe that Britain would stand alone if faced with any possible enemy today. I believe that we, as well as France and the United States, have learned the lesson of two world wars, and we will act and function unitedly.
    I have faith in the United States and in the N.A.T.O. Alliance. I do not doubt the sincerity of the United States in wishing to defend and protect Western civilisation from any possible attack. Therefore, I believe that it is right and proper that there should be a coming and going, that we should use the best of their equipment and that they should use the best of ours. To some degree this has been happening. There are more Rolls-Royce engines manufactured under licence powering American planes than there are American engines. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Not more. At least there are as many. It is a very high proportion. Rolls-Royce engines, both for civil and military purposes, are manufactured
    542
    there under licence. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am wrong. I was under the impression, from the figures which I have studied, that they were powering those aircraft. There are more Rolls-Royce engines powering airframes all over the world, including the United States, than American-designed engines.
    It is well known—I have heard this said wherever I have been in aeronautical circles—that Rolls-Royce is producing the most progressive and efficient aero-engines in the world. This is a good thing, and I have no objection to bringing to this country or manufacturing in this country airframes designed by aerodynamic engineers in the United States.
    Let us come to the aircraft industry. I have heard some extraordinary statements on this subject. I hope that no British Government will ever maintain a sector of production just for the sake of maintaining the employment of a certain section of the population. Some special pleading was submitted by one hon. Member who said, "Here are 2,000 men with high skills. They must not be redeployed. They cannot be redeployed. They cannot be expected to knit stockings." No one knits stockings commercially today. We manufacture very complicated machines for weaving man-made fibres, silks, cottons and wools. To use that sort of argument is to lower the debate to the ridiculous. That is not the situation at all.
    Many of us, over the last 13 years, have witnessed the decline in coal mining Many of us have seen hundreds of miners—skilled men working at the coal face, using a skill which is required by no one else—having to take their labour into other fields. Of course, in an authoritarian society one can be pushed to do a job, but in a free society one must be free to change one's job. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even in Parliament."] Even in Parliament. I have been here for 13½ years and I have seen about 10 Ministers of Defence. I remember, when hon. Gentlemen opposite sat on this side—
    The Chairman: We are not discussing Parliamentary democracy. The hon. Member must get back to the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Bence: Thank you, Dr. King. We had experience of regular redeployment when hon. Gentlemen sat on this side in the last Parliament. I am certain that what hon. Members opposite are sore about is that they recognise in their hearts that a Labour Government has had the courage to take decisions about the aircraft industry which they failed to take over the last 13 years. One of the greatest weaknesses over the last 13 years has been this problem of procurement. The aircraft industry has never been certain what the Government wanted. It has been faced time and time again with—
    Mr. Maxwell: Dithering.
    Mr. Bence: —yes, dithering on the the part of the Administration. It is easy to criticise and sneer at these difficulties. I have criticised the Government in many respects over the past 13 years for their failure to give the industry at least a five-year procurement programme. I understand that this is a very difficult field of procurement—
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.
    Ordered,
    That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of Two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]
    Supply again considered in Committee.
    Mr. Bence: My next point is based upon some of the speeches I have heard today and some of the articles I have read by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about the so-called treatment by the Labour Government of the aircraft industry. Let there is no illusions. There has been serious lack of control by the Government. I appreciate the difficulties about controlling the industry. On the expenditure side, it must be appreciated that research and development contracts are given out, and, therefore, one must be prepared to spend a large sum of money on paying scientists and technologists to do research. Research and development at this level is not an easy business. At the stage where we are nearly in the supersonic range, it
    544
    is very expensive. It is a very longterm business. Nevertheless, as has been proved by the Public Accounts Committee, there has been a serious lack of control from the centre and far too much weakness in handling the industry.
    A few years ago we had the shot-gun marriage of various companies. They had to get together and form three groups. The groups having been established, they were promised more security and more long-term development projects. The industry was reduced by about 13 per cent., although I believe that the estimate was a little more than that. An hon. Member opposite said that the contracts for the TSR2 and other aircraft are essential to enable the aircraft industry to develop its civil side. I am sorry if that is true, but if it is, it is very bad. I do not think that the Viscount evolved from a military aircraft. It is a sad reflection on the industry if it has to depend for the devlopment of its civil side entirely upon development contracts given to it by the military authorities.
    This year's estimate of expenditure must be the consequence of the last financial year. It cannot be otherwise. It is the product not of the present Administration but of the previous one. There is nothing unusual about this. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) made a great many cheap political points which bore no relevance to these Estimates. However, I am a member of the Estimates Committee, and I hope that in the next financial year we shall be able further to tighten the control on expenditure by making further agreements with our allies. I understand that an agreement is in process with the French, and I hope we can make further agreements with the United States. I trust that, with the development of the aircraft defensive system of the Western Alliance being, by its very nature, a collective and integrated effort, we shall be able to reduce next year's Estimates considerably.
    If we are to attain a 4 per cent. growth rate we cannot go on carrying this huge burden for our Services. I agree that it is right that we should have troops and air bases on the Continent of Europe, but our allies should help us carry the burden of doing that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing his best to secure that help and I believe that he is likely

    545
    to succeed where his predecessors failed. All of us—including, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite—hope that he will succeed. In the next four years of the Labour Administration I hope that we will considerably reduce the Estimates for the Royal Air Force.
    10.6 p.m.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) spoke about the next four years of the Labour Government. I wish that he was as optimistic about the affairs of the aircraft industry as he is about the future of his party. He said that he wanted to see the R.A.F. have the best equipment. We all do, but the basis of our complaint is that it will not get the best equipment because it will get equipment which has been stepped down performance-wise, but I will come to that later. I was shocked to hear the Under-Secretary give the dates of delivery of the P1127, but I will deal with that later, too.
    The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East referred to co-operation with the United States. What sort of co-operation has he ever seen between Britain and the United States in the aircraft industry? Is he not aware that it is a one-way traffic? He spoke about Rolls-Royce engines being predominant in the United States, but that is not the case. What happened was that the jet engine was a British invention, and we sold it to America very cheaply indeed. I do not suppose that one American in a hundred realises today that the Curtis Wright—or whichever one it is—jet engine comes From a British design. We should say more about this when we speak about the aircraft industry. As I say, it is a one-way traffic, and there is no real co-operation between Britain and America in this respect. All that they want at the moment is the vertical take-off, because there is a two or three year lead in its development.
    If the hon. Gentleman thinks that by handing over the manufacture of airframes to the United States we will continue selling British engines, he should think again.
    Mr. Bence: I did not say that.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Other hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to this during the day and have said that Britain could sell engines to the United States.
    Mr. Bence: I said that we could manufacture airframes here. There is no reason why we should not manufacture airframes which are common to the American, French and our own Air Forces.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has not studied the problem. He should do his homework. Who will design the British aircraft if the Hawker Siddeley design team is broken up? It took 30 years to get this design team together, and they will not come back now. We hope that the design team of the British Aircraft Corporation, the TSR2, will be saved, but that is uncertain.
    I return to the subject of the Estimates. Do not let us underrate the importance of manned aircraft. It may be said that in his White Paper of 1957, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) thought, or indicated, that the guided weapon would take over the rôle of the R.A.F. He did not say that, but it was taken to mean that. The fact is that there will always be an important rôle for manned aircraft. No one should under-estimate that. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) is all smiles, but he was not here. He came into the debate only a few minutes ago, but he will no doubt play a large part for the rest of the evening—
    Mr. Maxwell: It does not come well from the mouth of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) to state that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) did not say in that White Paper that he intended to rely on missiles—on Skybolt and all those weapons. He ran down the rôle of the Air Force to nothing. If anyone is at fault for the Royal Air Force being in its present state, it is the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Streatham and for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), and no amount of whitewash will do them any good.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I could reply to the hon. Gentleman very effectively, though I do not want to exceed the bounds of order, by saying that his own Government are carrying out the policy of manufacturing the Polaris submarine. I leave it at that.

    547
    One of the most important factors we have to consider is the Royal Air Force's lines of communication throughout the world. We saw what happened exactly a year ago in East Africa, when the Royal Air Force went to the rescue of the new East African States and assisted in bringing law and order there. It played an important rôle there with the Army, but it could not have done so without its air base at Aden. I hope we shall be told what progress has been made about the future of the Aden base as it relates to the Air Force.
    There is also the staging post at Gan. One hon. Member opposite complained that the staging post at Gan cost £1 million a year, but the fact is that this is one of the cheapest investments we have had. To have a fixed aircraft carrier south of Ceylon as a staging post for civil and military aircraft is a remarkably good investment. I only wish we had two or three more places like Gan on which the Royal Air Force could rely, and I should like to know whether a survey has been made to see whether, in the event of things going wrong with this particular staging post, there would be alternative landing places in the Seychelles or Mauritius.
    The R.A.F. rôle in Malaya is considerable, and there are no indications that the Service will be released from its commitments there. A short time ago I heard an hon. Member complain about the work the R.A.F. has east of Suez. He said that it should be brought back home. I would remind the Committee that Britain has a treaty obligation to Malaysia—a loyal, friendly, small country with a population of very fine people—and we could not possibly walk out now and hand over this responsibility. As a matter of fact, there is no one to whom we could hand it over.
    What is keeping the peace there today is the rôle of the R.A.F., and that means the V-bombers that are stationed there—
    Mr. Maxwell: It is the Army.
    The Chairman: Order. I must ask hon. Gentlemen not to interrupt from a sedentary position, and I would ask the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), who has just joined this debate, particularly not to interrupt.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Thank you very much, Dr. King. I am doing my best to put my argument about the rôle of the R.A.F. in Malaysia. Had the Royal Air Force not been there, the situation would undoubtedly have worsened. The V-bombers there, whether or not they have conventional weapons, are a real threat to Mr. Sukarno's air bases. These V-bombers are keeping the peace. I do not want to complain about broken Government promises and the rôle of the R.A.F. I welcome the fact that the party opposite has seen reason and has followed a policy that we would have carried out had we been the Government. I congratulate the Government on doing this.
    There is the possible threat to India, that enormous continent, from the Chinese. We hope that it will not happen, but two years ago it happened and it might get worse as the Chinese develop. Here I am referring to the rôle of the Royal Air Force which is in Malaysia at the moment. It might possibly be switched to assist in the defence of India. There again, the V-bombers, or the TSR2 if it came into being, could make a contribution.
    We know that a number of aircraft have been ordered for Transport Command. We know that this Command is now to have another station in the West Country from which to operate. Has it enough aircraft for the future, bearing in mind that the communications may be stretched and mobility will be more necessary than ever? There are 10 Belfasts coming along. When will these Belfasts be delivered and be operational in the squadrons? I am not interested in the test flying. I want to know when they will be operational in the squadrons. When will the VC1Os for the Royal Air Force be operational in the squadrons? It is very important to have these figures.
    I want to refer to the procurement of some of the equipment for the Services. We were told today by the Under-Secretary that the TSR2 is still under consideration. I thought that the hon. Gentleman did what several of his right hon. Friends have done recently. He went out of his way to give rather the worst picture of the TSR2. He did not keep it balanced and say, for example, that it had been an expensive project. Had he said that this aircraft went

    549
    through the sound barrier on its twelfth flight, it would have been helpful, because it would have enabled the Committee to assess how well the aircraft was doing. In fact, the TSR2 is doing remark ably well. It is probably two years ahead of the American project. Without getting involved in the overall finance, we think that the cost of the research and development of the TSR2 is somewhere between £250 and £300 million. We were told a few weeks ago that the cancellation charges, if it were cancelled, would be about £150 million. That brings us to a total possible expenditure, even if it were cancelled, of £450 million. We were told that the overall expenditure for 148 would be about £750 million. If the Government were to decide to buy the TFX Mark II. which is not yet designed completely and certainly is not costed—they could well be £2 million each—this would work out quite simply: 144 aircraft for the Royal Air Force at £2 million each, very nearly £300 million.
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a number of figures. May I ask him where he obtained one figure in particular, because he said that we were told a week or two ago that the cancellation charges would be £150 million? Whoever told the hon. Gentleman that, it was certainly not any spokesman for the Government, because no figure has ever been disclosed.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I stand to be corrected, but I think that it was when we were discussing this matter on a statement by the Prime Minister. I think that I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and he gave that information. I stand to be corrected. The figure of £150 million cancellation charge definitely came from the Treasury Bench. Research will show who is right on this. That is my clear recollection. I could not have arrived at the figure by guesswork.
    I cannot see that there will be a saving by going to the United States to buy the TFX. It has not got the same range. Had the Government when in opposition shown some enthusiasm a year ago for the TSR2, it is possible that the Australian Government would have placed an order for this aircraft. We would then have had a common aircraft between the Australians and the Royal Air Force,
    550
    which would have been a very useful arrangement in the years to come in the Far East.
    We have been told that the P1127 will be delivered at the end of this decade. I was astonished to hear today that the Royal Air Force will not get the P1127 for at least another five years. We were told the other day that the bad men of the Conservative Party were absolutely at fault because the Hunter had to go on for another five years. I know that the Phantom will come in. It will go some way to replace the Hunter, but not entirely. The P1127 will be delivered five years from now. Whatever is done to it, it will still not be supersonic. It cannot be; and, if the Government are going to increase the load and the range, why not wait another year or possibly 18 months and go all out for the P1154, which is what the Americans want? This seems to me to be the most inept decision that the Government have made. Of course, it will be cheaper—
    Mr. Millan indicated dissent.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he made the statement earlier this afternoon. Perhaps he can amplify his remarks or correct them later this evening.
    As to the C130, the transport aeroplane on which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a brilliant speech this evening, I should like to know when the Prime Minister and his advisers placed the order for this aircraft and whether they specified British engines. I am inclined to think that they did not. I was told yesterday on the best authority that if the Government insist on Rolls-Royce engines going into the C130, the Americans will charge 500,000 dollars extra for that installation. I should like to know what the real facts are. Once one signs the dotted line the Americans put the screw on. That has been my experience, and the British Government will find this out as they go along. What price do they think they will pay for spares in the years following the delivery of the aircraft? That is where the money will go. It is like a loss-leader, and eventually they will find that they have paid a high price for the main article.

    551
    Can we be told when the Phantoms will be delivered? What development and what modifications have got to be carried out to these aircraft, and may we be told whether the aircraft which are going to the Royal Air Force are to have Rolls-Royce engines? In addition, will British or American electronics be fitted?
    The hon. Gentleman said that the cost price of the P1127 will be adhered to. Does he mean that there will be a fixed price for an aircraft which is going to be considerably modified and delivered five years hence?
    I am delighted that the Government, in spite of all the errors they have made in rushing into this and doing a deal with the United States, can see that the logical thing to do is to co-operate with our friends on the Continent, and particularly with the French. I think that the French have been very reasonable in wanting to do a deal with us, in view of the way in which they were treated. They had very rough treatment indeed. However, some progress seems to have been made in that direction, and my feeling is that through the Royal Air Force we have a strong card with which to get closer to Europe as a whole, which I am sure has got to happen in some form or other, not only for defence purposes but for economic and other reasons.
    I now want to turn to the reserve and auxiliary forces mentioned in the Estimates. Last year £228,000 was spent on the cadet forces. In the current year the figure was £218,000, a reduction of £10,000. Surely when we are speaking of £562 million, here is a modest sum with which to try to encourage the interest of these youngsters at school in this great Service. I should have thought that this was a project on which expenditure ought to be increased, when we are experiencing trouble in getting the right type of man required both in the ranks and as officers.
    On page 153 of the Estimates, under the heading "Liquid fuels", etc., we see that a slightly smaller sum has been spent on fuels. I should like to know whether this means that less flying is taking place in the Royal Air Force. I also notice that recruitment of aircraftmen
    552
    and youths is down by some 3,700. We know that there is a deliberate plan to run down the personnel, but how far will this be allowed to go? Will the standard of efficiency be maintained among these very important men?
    My view has always been that apprentices trained at Halton get the right background for the R.A.F. A great percentage of these apprentices after they have joined the Service become officers either on the technical side or on general duties. They have been the backbone of the R.A.F.
    I should like to ask the Minister how much we are going to rely on the United States in all these matters. We read in the Sunday Press the statement made by Mr. Kuss, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence in Washington, about some of the methods used by Americans to try to get a complete monopoly of the Western European market. It would be a bad thing for the air defence of this country if five or ten years hence we are almost 100 per cent. dependent on the United States. It would be most regrettable. I am all for trading to some extent if we are short or something, either by lease or hire, but this has almost been a complete sell-out to the United States.
    Mr. Maxwell indicated dissent.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member shakes his head, but the R.A.F. operational requirement department, which has been very efficient and plans ten years ahead for requirements for a specific rôle, worked out the requirements for the TSR2 and over the years during which it has been building the specifications have hardly altered at all. These people are experts and it is not for politicians or even Governments to work against these men who say that the TSR2 is the type of aircraft required for reconnaissance and the HS681 for vertical take-off.
    Mr. Maxwell: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that instead of making rabid anti-American speeches on this issue it would be better if he concentrated on asking the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an organisation similar to that which the American Defence Department has to help sell British weapons systems and equipment to our allies, including the United States? Let

    553
    us get a little more aggressive on this issue instead of spending time on being anti-American.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not want advice from the hon. Member on how to make my speeches, and I have been long enough in the aircraft industry to have great respect and affection for the Americans. I tried to sell equipment to them when I was in the business. I know their methods, but I am warning the Committee, as I have warned the House for a great many years before the hon. Member for Buckingham came here, of the dangers of selling out to the United States. At least I have been consistent, and it will have to be seen whether I am right or wrong in saying that if that policy is continued design teams will be disbanded and these men will not be happy to go into the tractor business and see their wages halved. I would prefer to see us merge with the Europeans. I want to see a complete integration in N.A.T.O.
    It seems now that the Government have come right round to the advice given to them by the previous Administration on how the Services and the defence system should be run. In today's debate I have heard only about 1½ speeches from hon. Members opposite giving some measure of support for the Government. The first three speeches from the back benches opposite were anti-Government right throgh. I noticed
    554
    that in all these debates the Government have not had support from their own back benchers. It is very significant that, whether we are discussing the supply of aircraft in an aviation debate or in a defence debate, or in a debate on the Service Estimates, the Government are not getting support from their back benchers. It is a bad thing for Britain to have a Government, with an overall majority of four, who do not have their party behind them in these very important matters.
    In the five hours of this debate so far, the number of Members present on the benches opposite has varied between six and eight. Yet hon. Members opposite go around the country saying that they are concerned about the taxpayers' money. Today we are dealing with £560 million, but where have hon. Members opposite been? Where have the Liberals been? The nation should know these things.
    Mr. Bence: How many Tories have been present?
    Sir A. V. Harvey: About three times the number of hon. Members opposite throughout the debate. I have kept a careful count. The Conservative Party has been consistent over the years in its defence policy and towards the R.A.F., and there is only one thing to do—to turn the Government out neck and crop and reverse many of the decisions they have made.
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen Hastings: I should begin by declaring an interest, however remote. I am a director of the Handley Page Company. I say "remote" for, as an independent airframe constructor, the company has had a difficult time over a number of years now against somewhat artificial difficulties and has made, and is making, a success both in the export of civil aircraft and in a number of important military projects, as the Under-Secretary of State, who was good enough to pay us a visit the other day, will confirm.
    In all this time, the company has never made any public complaint about the difficulties it has faced and certainly will not wish to start tonight through me. I therefore make it clear to the Under-Secretary of State that I am speaking tonight as a private Member and in no sense as a director of Handley Page.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) that, of the three Service Estimates debates, this one is the most important. The military projects which have formed the kernel of the debate lie at the heart not only of air power but of much else besides. Of course, the three British projects which have attracted most attention during the debate have been the cancellations—the HS 681, the P 1154 and the TSR 2. But it would be a mistake if we concentrated solely on the relative merits of these and of the American aircraft it is proposed to buy in their stead. If we did, there would be some danger perhaps that the Committee might miss the main threat implicit in the cancellations as a whole, and therefore I want to deal briefly with this general aspect at the beginning of my remarks.
    These cancellations have come about in my submission—and I accept that this has been said time and again, certainly by my right hon. and hon. Friends—because the Government have been taken for a ride by the Americans. It is as simple as that. But they also stem from a proposition, sedulously peddled by a small group in Whitehall, and which, I believe has been or was swallowed hook, line and sinker by this Government. That proposition is that we can abandon military projects in aviation, concentrate on civil aircraft and yet retain an aviation
    556
    industry and an adequate and independent defence. It is even said in the White Paper that the purchase of American aircraft is, in a sense, an interim measure and that we can get back to building our own independent military aircraft later on. I believe this proposition to be wholly false and extremely dangerous.
    The interdependence of the military and the civil sides of this industry is complete, and I would like briefly to quote some statistics from the United States which show graphically that what is true for us is even more true of the Americans. In one or two speeches today there has been a tendency to suggest that we can separate these two sides of the industry, and that is the main proposition I am dealing with now.
    In the United States industry there is an immense preponderance of turnover in military projects. The proportion of total sales of aircraft, engines and parts accounted for by United States Government contracts for military aircraft from 1949 to 1959 was never lower than 84 per cent. and has been as high as 91 per cent. This explains why the Americans can offer civil aircraft at such competitive prices and shows that the two sides of the industry, certainly in the United States, are completely interwoven. Undoubtedly the same applies in this country.
    Various results immediately follow from the cancellation of the military projects in the industry as a whole. The first is that we can no longer offer civil aircraft at competitive prices and the second—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Gentleman is talking about the aircraft industry and not about the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Hastings: I am endeavouring to show the results for the industry as a whole of trying to separate the two sides. It is my contention that this proposition is the reason for the cancellation of these projects and I therefore submit—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing the aircraft industry but the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Hastings: Yes, but does it not follow that we cannot hope to maintain

    557
    an efficient Air Force unless we have an aircraft industry which can keep going technically? That is the point I am trying to make. I know that this seems to be on the borderline of order, Sir Samuel, but it is my contention that if you make the mistake which the Government have made and imagine that you can cancel the military side and keep going on the civil side independently, the industry as a whole will become quite incapable—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate what he is saying to the Air Estimates.
    Mr. Hastings: I would have thought that the cost of the projects as a whole was closely related. I was about to say that if the military projects are cancelled the whole pace of technical advance throughout a wide range of equipment, as well as in airframe construction, will fall behind and that we shall be forced to buy military equipment as well as civil aircraft in ever-increasing numbers from abroad and we shall progressively fall behind technologically.
    It may be asked what would happen to the civil side if all major aircraft-producing nations dropped military projects. Does my argument fall down on that score? It does not, because if that happened we should all be in the same boat and we should be competing on level terms. If, as is implicit in these cancellations, it is conceived that we can keep the industry alive while cancelling major military projects, the results will be disaster all round.
    I contend that there are two separate threats to the maintenance of an efficient Air Force, which of course, is the objective behind the figures which we are discussing. They may be described, respectively, as the commercial threat and the technological threat to the air power of this country. It should be evident by this time that, as of comparatively recent date, it has been a clear American aim to turn the whole of Europe into one vast technological market for American arms and aircraft, with the object of financing research and development and the maintenance of the American Air Force and American air power. The Americans cannot be blamed for that. A number
    558
    of hon. Members have already alluded to this and it is undoubtedly the case.
    If it is not obvious to the Government or in this country by now, it is certainly not the fault of the Americans, beginning with Mr. McNamara, the Secretary for Defence, who told Congress only a week or two ago that this new policy was saving the American taxpayer thousands of millions of dollars. The architect of this supermarket—it is all on the "never-never"—has also been alluded to in the debate. He is Mr. Henry J. Kuss, Jnr., rejoicing in the title of Deputy Assistant of Defence for international logistics negotiations, a euphemism for the hard sell, and a hard sell which is succeeding all too well in this country, thanks to the mistakes of the Government. Moreover, Mr. McNamara called a Press conference last month to crow, as he well might, over the successful sales of £357 million worth of American equipment to the British and to the Australians.
    Now I know it has been suggested by Ministers on the Government Front Bench that there may be a chance of installing British control gear, ejector seats or aero-engines in the longer term in any American aircraft which are purchased now or later. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary of State when he replies whether there has been any suggestion of encouragement from Washington to lead us to believe that that is likely. I do not believe that there has been any encouragement whatever. I prefer to rely upon the comment of Mr. Cecil Browlow, editor of Aviation Week, a publication of wide significance and importance in the industry internationally, who the other day described the policy of the British Government as "a policy of suicide" in that it was financing development on the part of our largest competitor in the world in aviation.
    I should like to pass briefly to the various projects and to start with the P1154, which, naturally enough, has been one of the chief subjects of debate, and to ask the Minister whether he is aware that a Senate committee of the United States reported, at about the same time as the decision to cancel was taken, that we were over two years ahead of the Americans on v.t.o.l. A great many hon. Members on the benches

    559
    opposite have suggested that the former Government were late in making up their mind on this project. One hon. Member even suggested that there had been dithering in the industry. Is it really so dilatory of the former Government to have made up their mind on a project as complicated, expensive and difficult as this in order to procure a lead of two years or more over our main competitors? I simply cannot reconcile that. I would not mind betting that in eight years' time, unless there is a radical reorientation of policy on this side of the Atlantic, we shall certainly be buying the replica or the twin of the P1154, for which the Americans have already put out a specification, or, failing that, perhaps even the Mystere 3V which the French are constructing.
    For all we know—and the Minister certainly has not informed us to the contrary—the P1127 is still a development aircraft. If it is to be stretched, although many of us doubt whether it can be, to do a job even remotely comparable to the P1154, it will have to be modified in such a way that it will hardly be recognisable as the same aircraft. The Minister admitted that he has not the faintest idea when it will be ready. How long, for example, does an engine change take? This alone is a relevant factor in turning this machine into an operational aircraft.
    The main point about the HS681 is that in cancelling it we are handing over the whole sector of military air transport to the Americans. How we are to get it back, I cannot foresee. Surely, at a time when our bases are becoming steadily fewer in number and further away, the ability to concentrate force wherever it is needed fast becomes more rather than less important. That is to say, air transport as a factor of air power is greater, perhaps, than it has ever been. This is the moment when the Government choose to let the initiative pass altogether to a foreign Power, however friendly it may be.
    The 802 has so far been mentioned in one speech only, I think, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Mr. McMaster). Hawker Siddeley attempted to improvise, as the Minister knows very well, after the decision was apparently taken to buy the C130, with the HS802. There is no doubt that this
    560
    aircraft could have done a very satisfactory job, and certainly better than the C130, and it would have been ready at a comparable price and time. The Minister said earlier, when he was asked a question about this, that adequate consideration had been given to that project, but on the evidence, and with respect to him, I do not think we can accept that at all. I think it was only a suggestion from the company which forced the Government to consider it at all, or to go through the motions of considering it; this process lasted about a week, and then the project was written off, whereas it could in fact have done the job very adequately indeed.
    Mr. Millan: I do not want to keep interrupting, but the hon. Member has made so many inaccurate statements, and the last one about the 802 is the most inaccurate of the lot. There has never been any question that it could have been available at the same time as C130. It has been stated from this Dispatch Box on at least three occasions that the first of them would have been two years later and the last of them four years later from the date on which the whole of the C130s were in service.
    Mr. Hastings: Yes, but the Minister has already made it quite plain. He has been challenged again and again from this side to admit whether he does or does not know when the C130 will be ready. He has admitted he does not know. How, then, can he maintain that it will be ready before the 802? Does he or does he not accept that the air transport factor is one which we should not have surrendered lightly, as it is absolutely plain we have?
    TSR2 has been mentioned so many times that I do not intend to spend any time at all on it, except to point out that operational requirements really rest on three factors, range, vulnerability, and hitting power. This is dictated by the Far East, not simply by the Soviet target, as was mentioned by one hon. Member opposite. I do think that there has been more ill-informed nonsense written in the newspapers and generally about this project than perhaps about any other. And here, I think, the Government are grossly to blame. Nobody, in the whole range of this series of debates on aviation, the aircraft industry, the Air Force, has denied that the Government had a perfect right to

    561
    look into these projects, but that they should have allowed the situation to develop semi-publicly and then entirely in public so that normally responsible organs such as the Sunday Times, The Observer, and the Economist have written what really has been extraordinarily ill-informed stuff about this project was a lamentable dereliction, and it should never have come about.
    If, as I most deeply hope they do not choose to do, they take the TFX, I must ask the Minister a question about it. The Minister knows as well as I do, to be effective missile defence depends on the angle of fire, and the lower an aircraft can operate the safer it will be. What are the operating heights of the TSR2 and the TFX? What is the difference between them? Secondly, if TFX is to fulfil two rôles, interdiction and reconnaissance, it must carry linescan. Can it do so, as it will have to, if it is to perform the reconnaissance rôle adequately?
    I mentioned two principal threats to the industry: first, the commercial one, the question of Europe as a whole being absorbed as an American technological market, and, secondly, I believe it right to say that there is also a technological threat, which I express by saying that for technology generally in the country to succeed there must be a leader industry of some kind. The advance of science generally is so rapid today and the extent of investment so vast that we cannot do it on a wide front—this is the view of the Russians at any rate. There are, therefore, two choices before us as a leader industry; first, nuclear, and, secondly, aircraft construction and aerospace research.
    It is plain that, for a variety of technical reasons, the nuclear one is not one because of the materials involved. It is a science removed completely, and there will be no spin off, no question of its leading other technologies. Aero-space and aviation is the only alternative. If this is not followed, which industry is to be encouraged as the leader? We have never, in this series of debates, had any sort of answer to that question, although it has been put to the Government.
    The provisions that we are discussing today lie at the heart of this industry. If they go, and the TSR 2 follows them,
    562
    it is possible that in a few years' time we shall not have any competitive form of aviation industry, or an Air Force equipped with British equipment in any way to compare with our competitors on a world scale, and our leader industry will be the very section of the economy at which the Government will have struck most violently.
    What is air power? Does it matter in modern conditions? I am sure, as other hon. Members have said, that it is the key to our survival, just as it was in 1939. I am sure that it is the key to technological and, therefore, to economic success. It is also, if I may say so without straying too far from the bounds of order, the key to adventure. During the middle ages nothing aroused more passionate interest than the tales, the speculations, and the voyages of the navigators. During the nineteenth century it was overland discovery in Africa and at the Poles which aroused interest. Today, it is the air which leads in this regard.
    It is not for nothing that youth in this country is absorbed with tales of outer space, nor that serious people are as concerned as they are with what have come to be known as flying saucers. It is man's lot to be adventurous, and it is a poor race of men which does not respond to this. We have always responded, but by taking the action which the Government have taken in the last four months on the projects which we are debating today, they are rapidly denying the nation the means to respond to this challenge of adventure.
    The decisions on these projects can only be compared with a decision in the sixteenth century to turn away from the sea. It must not rest there, and I hope that my hon. Friends will do everything that they can to upgrade aviation again to the position which it should hold, but no one can recapture the time and the precious lead which has been so shortsightedly squandered by the party opposite.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Maxwell: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and many other hon. Gentlemen opposite passed off the TSR2 as something hardly worth talking about. I rise to remind them what the former Administration—
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has not been here all day and has not heard the debate.
    Mr. Maxwell: I must remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that this aircraft started off with an R and D cost of £30 million. We have already spent £300 million on it, and we have not finished yet.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member does not think it is worth listening to the debate about it.
    Mr. Maxwell: In the 1957 White Paper the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) informed the House that there would be no replacement for the V-bomber force, and in 1958 Mr. Ward announced that it had been decided to develop a new strike reconnaissance aircraft as a replacement for the Canberra. Out of this decision, and for purely political reasons, to suit the party opposite, has grown the TSR2.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: Where has the hon. Member garnered his facts? He has not been in the Chamber all day to listen to the debate. This subject has been discussed in great detail by hon. Members on both sides. Where has he got his facts?
    Mr. Maxwell: If I had been in the Chamber I would not have learnt the facts from hon. Members opposite. The point I am trying to make is that the only facts that hon. Members opposite are willing to present here are those that suit their books, cooked or uncooked. The TSR2 came into being out of the cancellation of Blue Steel, Blue Streak and Skybolt. The TSR2 was created by the former Administration to maintain the ridiculous idea of creating an independent nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. McMaster: It is a reconnaissance aircraft.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member must get his facts right. The TSR2 was laid down in 1957, as he knows. Skybolt was cancelled two years ago, and had nothing whatever to do with it. Neither has the TRS2 anything to do with V-bombers. It was to replace the Canberra, which was not a V-bomber.
    Mr. Maxwell: The facts surely speak for themselves. No amount of doubletalk
    564
    can hide the fact that at the height of the Korean War our aircraft industry employed about 150,000 people, whereas when the former Administration was defeated that number had grown to 280,000 and the Royal Air Force was never worse equipped than it was at the time when the former Administration left office. The French Government and Air Force recognised, years before the former Tory Administration, that if one wishes to have a strike aircraft with a nuclear capability one has to fly it at tree-top level. For all these years the former Administration pretended to have an independent nuclear deterrent with a highflying, ageing V-bomber force, which they patently knew could be brought down by the available Soviet anti-aircraft guns.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why are the Government keeping it, then?
    Mr. Maxwell: We do not propose to replace it. I have been asked not to be too long, and although hon. Members opposite believe that I wish them ill, I have been asked to finish by 11 o'clock and I shall oblige. I appeal to my right hon. Friends to use their efforts and energies to ensure that our electronics industry does not become a burden on the taxpayer as the aircraft industry has been in the past 20 years. I should like to see this Administration use some panache and some unorthodox methods to install in the Defence Department the kind of technical sales force which Mr. McNamara has in his Defence Department. There is absolutely no reason why we should not take the initiative today with the French Government to bring about co-operation over electronics on the widest possible scale. This would not only benefit our military capability; it would be of the greatest service to the industries of Great Britain and to Europe as a whole.
    It must be accepted, because of the political and administrative errors of the former Administration, that the aircraft industry of this country must be built down. It cannot—with the exception of the engines business—be a major force in our industrial life. I trust that our Government will make certain that the electronics industry does not fall the same way.
    11.2 p.m.
    Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) for sitting down so promptly.
    I am sure that I shall have the sympathy at least of the Under-Secretary of State in speaking from this Box for the first time, since he has done the same today with a major speech. I am sure that I shall also have his sympathy as a member of the Opposition, for he sat on these benches for some time and knows what it is to depend on one's own researches instead of having a Department to work for one.
    The form in which the Statement on the Defence Estimates appears this year makes it even more difficult for back benchers, because when one is trying to deal with Air Estimates one has to grub around, picking up a little here and a little there, instead of having the Services dealt with by three separate Departments. Since there are three separate Services, I would have thought it reasonable to have had three separate compartments in the explanatory statement.
    It is tempting, after all the discussions about aircraft and procurement of aircraft for the Royal Air Force, to launch straight into that subject, especially after the provocative remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham. In passing, I must say—I must get back to other matters of importance before coming round to aircraft towards the end of my speech—that the TSR2, in any event, started off as a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft, and the nuclear capability was a bonus which was found to be there. It was never intended—[Interruption.] The Paymaster-General has contributed to these debates in the past, and we have missed him tonight. However, his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has done exactly the same thing, having come in after dinner and filled in a happy few minutes. He must accept that this is the position about TSR2. When the hon. Member for Buckingham says that the Administration which departed in October left a frightful mess for the Government to take care of—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Have a good cheer. I would just refer him to what his own Secretary of State for Defence said on 23rd November, 1964:
    566
    "I agree with the right hon. Member for Monmouth that he has handed over to me the best weapon any defence Minister in this country has yet had.…"-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1026.]
    So it does not come very well from the hon. Member to talk as though the defences of this country were in a bad state when the Conservative Government left office.
    Mr. Maxwell: Which weapon?
    Mr. Goodhew: He was referring to the whole weapons system, the defence weapons which this country possessed.
    The question of recruitment has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Sir E. Bullus), and it was mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State. One thing which must be of some concern is that it is becoming more difficult—this is stated in the White Paper—to recruit direct entry aircrew. I wonder why this should be. I understand that numbers are beginning to fall below the requirement. To try to counteract this, advertisement in the Press and elsewhere has been increased. I think it is right that we should pay a tribute to those who devise these advertisements, which are very good in content. Is it because there is a shortage of the right sort of material for aircrew? Or is it because the pay of aircrew in the Royal Air Force is lower than that of the civil airlines? It is unfortunate if that should be so. I appreciate that there are the advantages and attractions of Service life, such as the comradeship which we all enjoyed during our period in the Services, the sense of purpose and duty which is there, and the possibility of service overseas; but this should be a bonus rather than something that we have to pay for. I hope that the Government will look at the question of pay for aircrew to see whether it is not this which is discouraging direct entry. After all, this is the most vital section. Whatever else we may talk about, it is aircrew who are the spearhead.
    The Under-Secretary talked about wastage. If he has time, I should like him to say something about the reasons for the wastage of aircrew and the stage at which it occurs generally speaking, whether early in training or late. The situation in the ground branches is apparently generally satisfactory, but we were told by the hon. Gentleman that the

    567
    need for qualified entrants in the technical branch is still not being properly met. He said that there was a national shortage of people with technical qualifications. I am not sure whether this has anything to do with the "brain drain" about which we have heard so much in the last year or so, but, if it is, I would mention that that "brain drain" will be as but a drip from a pipette compared with what will happen if hon. Gentlemen opposite have their way with our aircraft industry. If we are faced with this competition with industry for technically qualified persons, we can only ask whether it is the question of pay once more, because this is a field in which there has been a deficiency and it was commented upon year by year during the last Parliament.
    It is not so surprising that there is a shortage in the education branch because one knows of the wastage in that profession, particularly among women, and I understand that it is among the W.R.A.F. that the shortage occurs. But it is somewhat surprising that there should be a shortage in the medical branch at a time when doctors are apparently dissatisfied with the civilian Health Service.
    In passing, I would say how gratifying it is to read of the success of the university cadetship scheme and also of the university air squadrons. These have been a great source of good, high quality recruits to the Royal Air Force in recent years. It is encouraging to notice that the scheme has now been extended to cover five more universities, so that there are now 18 squadrons covering 24 universities.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North mentioned the Air Training Corps. We would all wish to pay tribute to this body which provides over one third of the direct entry aircrew for the Service and nearly half of all officer cadets. Cranwell has been mentioned. It is encouraging to note that the entry there has been increasing over recent years and that last year there was a total of 125 entries. We started, I understand, at that time the new syllabus about which much was said in last year's Air Estimates debate. It includes more flying, especially advanced flying training, and more concentration on professional subjects,
    568
    and to make up for that there is a reduction in the academic content of the course and a cutting down of drill. I dare say that most of us, if going to Cranwell, would approve of that re-arrangement. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to say a word or two about that.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my hon. Friend care to invite the Under-Secretary to say whether he proposes to initiate any action on haircuts in the Royal Air Force as has been done in the Army?
    Mr. Goodhew: I do not think that in my present state I am fit to argue about that. I should have been to my own barber had it not been for working on this speech this week.
    The cost of training these men is very high now. From a cost of £9,000 to produce a bomber pilot in the last world war we have now worked up to a figure of £100,000 to train a V-bomber pilot. I dare say that this cost will continue to rise, but we should not begrudge the expense, because these crews must be responsible for the most expensive equipment. As has been pointed out during the debate, it is only right that they should be given the necessary training to enable them to use this equipment to the best advantage. It is to be hoped that this is a sphere in which cuts will not be made.
    It appears that we are recruiting the airmen we want, apart from certain categories. It has been unfortunate to learn from the Under-Secretary that it has been necessary in certain trades to prevent those who wish to purchase their discharge from so doing. This must be a bad thing from the Service point of view. A constituent of mine was in this position. It is a bad thing for the Service that people should have to stay on when they do not want to. I appreciate, however, that the only remedy is to get additional recruits to take over in those trades.
    The Under-Secretary was right to say that when considering recruiting for the R.A.F. the future shape, size and rôle of the force is of great importance. We will not get people to join the R.A.F. unless these are made clear and unless they can see a good future in the Service. I suggest that there could be cause for anxiety—this is not reflected in the present figures but it might be next year—if the future shape of R.A.F. aircraft procurement and so on is not clarified.

    569
    The trade structure in the R.A.F. is something which the other Services somewhat envy. I understand that there have been important changes in the last 12 months, particularly in the career prospects arid system of promotion for those in ground trades. Since there had been a certain amount of frustration due to people thinking that they were overdue for promotion long before they got it, this is obviously a good thing.
    Housing and accommodation is of extreme importance, for if we are to recruit people into the Service they must be content on an issue which, after all, affects their lives very much. This applies particularly at a time when men are marrying at a much earlier age and are often entering the Service as married men or are marrying soon afterwards. The provision of married quarters is, therefore, of greater importance now than in the past. Could we be told what percentage of married airmen are in married quarters or in hirings, both at home and abroad?
    The question of accompanied and unaccompanied tours was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle). This causes some difficulty because at a time when we cannot foresee whether our overseas bases will still be there in, say, 10 years' time, if I had my way I should prefer to build married quarters and accommodation in this country where we know that they will be there for ever, and send men on short, unaccompanied tours of one year. Having seen, during visits to our Services in Aden and elsewhere, how Army units are given tours of just one year, unaccompanied, and are able to do their training and exercises completely unencumbered, I am not so sure that that is not a better line of approach than that of trying to see that all airmen are accompanied.
    However, I appreciate that there must be flexibility; that there are people in, say, staff headquarters who, for the sake of continuity, need to complete longer tours. There is a lot to be said for having married quarters in this country, to which a man can return. It is difficult for a man who goes abroad and has married quarters there to find, when he comes home, that his family, his wife and children, are not entitled to married quarters and cannot obtain another home.
    570
    The works services have been transferred to the Ministry of Public Building and Works. How is this working out? We have not heard from the Under-Secretary what the form now is. It should have avoided a good deal of duplication and resulted in some saving. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on this issue. I turn to the educational allowances—
    Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman quoted from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I cannot find the passage. Can he give me the reference?
    Mr. Goodhew: I will gladly give it to the right hon. Gentleman later, if he cannot find it. I do not have it with me now, but he will find it in one of the pages the Prime Minister may have mentioned one day when he made a cheap gibe at my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find it, I will find it for him later.
    The educational allowances are important to those who are serving, and one thing that has aggravated the position has been the publication of the Plowden Report, which dealt with people in the Foreign Service and the Commonwealth Relations Service to whom allowances are made for boarding-school education and two holiday visits a year by children to their parents. Quite honestly, that is something that should have been looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), then Under-Secretary of State for Air, said:
    "…the repercussions of the generous increases recommended by Plowden must be seriously considered by the Service Departments."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 3rd March, 1964, Vol. 690, c. 1255.]
    Have they been considered, and has any decision been come to?
    The Airfield Construction Branch has been transferred to the Royal Engineers. How has this change of activity worked out? Is there effective liaison between the R.A.F. and the Engineers in this respect? How does it affect the forward bases, for instance? Is it merely Royal Engineers in name, and do the soldiers now wearing khaki go to the R.A.F. and remain attached to it wherever they go—
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)rose—
    Mr. Goodhew: No. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been brought in by his right hon. Friend. I certainly did not notice him when I started my speech. I am sure that he will allow me to finish, because there is little time. He has often refused to give way to me. If he cannot take what I have said, he can come back later.
    As I was saying, I hope very much that we may hear something about the Airfield Construction Branch, how the transfer is working out, who pays for it, and how the allocation of expenditure is made.
    I turn now to the military use of space. This subject has been mentioned from time to time in recent debates. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North has mentioned it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). It is constantly mentioned in debates, but we never seem to get any further. One wonders whether the Government are considering the subject, whether they have a committee inquiring into it, and what proposals they may have in mind. This is a sphere in which we as a country should be very active—
    Mr. Maxwell: Why did the former Administration not do it?
    Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member asks "Why did the previous Administration not do it?" That is the classic remark to everything we mention in the Chamber, but I am not afraid of this one. I have asked my own party in the past to deal with this matter. I was not a member of the Government, but I did my best—and did so a little more quietly than the hon. Member for Buckingham, who makes a lot of noise.
    The V-bomber force has been mentioned and, in particular, its rôle East of Suez. I understand the feelings of hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) among them—who are anxious about this because they are once more concerned with the nuclear capacity of these aircraft. I would just suggest that these aircraft have a conventional rôle as well; and that it would be quite wrong for any Minister to say outright whether they were there for conventional
    572
    or for nuclear purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad the Secretary of State is in such a genial mood. I think it is quite right that they should be available for either means of attack. But I was surprised at the hon. Member for Salford, West when he admitted his own experience of having flown in bombers during the last war and then said that we should not today provide ourselves with a proper form of defence. Had we had in 1939 the sort of R.A.F. we have today, which is a great deterrent to any would-be aggressor, perhaps the hon. Member would not have found himself having to fly in a bomber at all because there would probably have been no war.
    The increasing complexity of aircraft today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) made clear, is bound to result in increasing time for development and increasing costs. I should like to say a word or two about some of the less complex aircraft. I think the Under-Secretary said that he would mention some of the smaller aircraft. I was delighted to learn that there are 20 Beagle 206s, or Bassets, for communications in the R.A.F. But I am surprised, as there are 79 Avro Ansons, that there are to be only 20 Bassets. It seems to me that we might have ordered at least 30 and perhaps 40. Perhaps the HS125 is being bought for some of the purposes which the Anson once fulfilled. I should like some information about that.
    There is also the question of the Chipmunk replacement. I understand that the Beagle 121 is a possible candidate for this. It seems to me that this is a field in which we could compete with the United States. They have the field, but if the R.A.F. gives orders for these lighter aircraft and they are given a lead, foreign countries will buy.
    While on the subject of exports, I would mention Martin-Baker ejector seats which have contributed greatly to the safety of our aircraft and also to our export drive. Some £17 million worth have been sold in the last five years without direct aid or assistance from the Government, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will derive great satisfaction from that fact.
    Now I come to the decision to purchase the C130E and the Phantom in

    573
    place of the HS681 and the P1154. I was surprised that the Under-Secretary should have suggested that by seeking to compare these aircraft unfavourably with the British products we were likely to damage the morale of the R.A.F. I should have thought that the damage to the morale of the R.A.F. was much more likely to arise from this House deciding to downgrade a requirement which the R.A.F. decided was what it needed. This, it seems to me, is much more the point with which we should be dealing today.
    There was mention of Sir Roy Dobson, and I think it is pertinent to remark that he described the C130E as a quite different aircraft. It was turned down by the R.A.F. some years ago. It is obviously much less flexible than the HS681 and we do not even know now what is the latest version of the C130E that we are to have. We are told that it is a later version than the one that the Americans have been using and we do not know what its additional capacity is, going to be. But I think we are entitled to expect from the Minister an answer to the formidable case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I am afraid in my absence to get some much-needed sustenance. I gather that he made a formidable case, and I hope to have an answer to that.
    The HS681 is a jet tactical transport aircraft which can be used on the much shorter unprepared jungle strips, and is the sort of aircraft one needs for the "bushfire" war that we are constantly talking about in this House. I cannot understand how it is that we should wish to cancel it when, as my hon. Friend said, it was regarded last year by the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence as a welcome addition to our transport capacity.
    We do not know now whether it is to have the Tyne engines in it or not. It is strange that I should have had the same figure as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) of a price of 500,000 dollars each as the extra cost if we wish to have British engines installed, and it is interesting to note that this is nearly four times the extra charge on Phantoms for putting in Speys. It shows how stupid it is to come
    574
    to an agreement before one has settled the terms and the final requirements.
    The Phantom is a good supersonic fighter, but we cannot possibly consider it as anything like meeting the needs of the R.A.F. as compared with the P1154. We come back over all these requirements and procurements to the question of figures of cost, of time scales and dates. We have had all sorts of figures bandied across the Floor but we have never had a White Paper setting out the actual time scales and I am more confused than ever about the P1154 and the P127. It seems to me that the difference in time and cost is so narrow that I should have thought that there was a good case for reconsidering the matter.
    The complete lack of understanding from the other side of the Committee of the needs of the R.A.F., as assessed by the R.A.F., is quite remarkable. I do not understand how, having seen these requirements built up over the years and a great deal developed, the Government should suddenly write them off. What is the reason for the change-over to U.S. aircraft? We started off by being told that we must have a review of defence because of the balance of payments problem. Buying American aircraft will not help solve that.
    Who wrote down or reduced operational requirement? Was it the Chiefs of Staff or the Secretary of State for Defence? Who decided that Fate would be so kind that if we had to fight in future there would be prepared runways and we would not have to land on jungle strips and would not need forward support? What assessment was made of the R.A.F.'s rôle. in Britain's foreign policy which must be affected by the change.
    Mr. Healey: One thing deeply resented by the Air Staff is the suggestion that somehow they compelled the previous Government to accept requirements which would not have provided the R.A.F. with aircraft at the time it needed them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Air Staff is not only content but convinced that there is no way of meeting the requirements for the Hunter replacement or for tactical transport within the time available except by buying foreign because of the previous Government's policy.
    Mr. Goodhew: I will come to the question of whether it was necessary to

    575
    have a stop-gap of foreign aircraft, but this does not necessarily mean that it is vital to order American for ever more, which it looks as if the Government are doing. Was this done on the advice of Mr. Richard Worcester? His previously publicised views on the British aircraft industry are very reminiscent of those of hon. Members opposite. The words "overgrown" and "mentally retarded" appear constantly. It is worth mentioning that in 1956 this gentlemen, who is such a prophet, described the air transport industry as "an industry gone mad" and said that to order jet aircraft was "a revolutionary orgy." He was all for sticking to turbo-props—a very progressive gentleman. I hope that it was not his advice that we should buy American aircraft.
    Perhaps it was not a military decision. Perhaps it was the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs who decided that we had to save £30 million a year to pay for the abolition of prescription charges. We have heard much talk about strangling our social services during the debates on the aircraft industry and the R.A.F. and if this is so one can well understand why the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is so coy about coming to the House to answer Questions.
    This is an illusory saving. If hon. Members opposite think they are going to save £30 million a year are they quite sure that it is true saving? The millions which will go to the Americans will be in dollars. The money spent on the British aircraft would be spent in this country. The workers earning money would pay taxes; the companies would pay taxes on their profits; the people making profits or earning money would pay Purchase Tax. Much of the money would go back to the Treasury. How can it be said that £30 million a year will be saved? I should like an explanation of how this figure is arrived at.
    This is the first time a Government have taken a deliberate decision not to give the R.A.F. the best planes possible. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but I wonder what would have happened in the last war if, instead of developing and building the Spitfire and the Hurricane, we had bought American
    576
    aircraft which had been in use for some years. The Under-Secretary of State mentioned the Battle of Britain. I doubt whether we would have won that battle with foreign aircraft.
    All that we have discussed today goes by the board if we have not effective air power, and effective air power means having the best aircraft available at the time.
    Mr. Wigg: Yes. At the time.
    Mr. Goodhew: As I have said, we would understand the stop-gap, or I would understand it—
    Mr. Wigg: That is doubtful.
    Mr. Goodhew: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. He does not know what is in my mind. I was saying that I would have understood the stop-gap had the question been answered as to what was to happen in the 1970s. But we are purchasing American aircraft for the R.A.F. without thought for what is to happen when a much more serious gap occurs in the 1970s—and when we could have had, with British aircraft, the best and most sophisticated air force in the world. It look as if the Government are softening-up on the TSR2. Everything they say points to that and the R.A.F. will be watching everything the Government do with the greatest anxiety.
    11.33 p.m.
    Mr. Millan: The first thing I must do is to congratulate the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), if I may, on his debut at the Dispatch Box. He has not had a completely uneventful half-hour but he has comported himself admirably and has raised a considerable number of questions, not all of which I shall be able to answer in the time available to me. I will be glad to write to him on some of the more specific questions he raised about recruiting and give him specific answers.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised a number of other points, apart from those dealing with aircraft procurement, as did other hon. Members. But, of course, this is not a debate on the aircraft industry, although it sounded suspiciously like one on more than one occasion. There are lots of other matters concerning the R.A.F. which we should be discussing and should be concerned about and I will deal with some of them now.

    577
    The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) asked if I would say something more about the recruiting of direct entry aircrew. He may have misunderstood something I said earlier. I think that he was under the impression that we were well off our target for the recruitment of aircrew. I am glad to be able to say that that is not so. Obviously, there are difficulties. There is great competition for the kind of highly qualified and intelligent young men we require and there is obviously a big demand for them in industry and elsewhere. However, we are pretty near the target we need and we are by no means in serious difficulty in this respect.
    The hon. Member for St. Albans, the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) and others mentioned the Air Training Corps. There is no intention of running down the Corps. We greatly appreciate its tremendous value to the Service. In 1964, for example, 583 of our administrative, craft and technician apprentices recruited had been members of cadet forces, and that figure represents about 44 per cent. of our recruitment in that category. We get a very large percentage of our officer cadets through the Air Training Corps, which is our biggest single source of recruitment for the Service and we are very anxious that its activities should be expanded in every way possible.
    The hon. Member for St. Albans and a number of other hon. Members mentioned family separation, with particular reference to unaccompanied tours overseas. This is an extremely difficult problem. As a general principle, the aim of the R.A.F. is to provide accommodation for every married man and his family on every posting. The hon. Member suggested that in certain circumstances a Service man would not mind being separated from his family. Unfortunately, that is not our experience in practice.
    Nowadays, the airman wants to be accompanied by his family wherever possible, and we try to see that in practice he is; but there are obvious difficulties in some overseas postings. There are places where actual operational activities are going on, where fighting is taking place, and wives and families obviously cannot go to those. There are
    578
    remote stations where there are no accommodation facilities for wives and families, and a number of difficult places like Bahrain and Aden where there is a shortage of accommodation and where, as in Aden, there are political disturbances so that there has to be a certain amount of unaccompanied posting.
    However, we appreciate that this is not popular with the airmen. It is unavoidable, but we try to keep it to the absolute minimum. Even in places where there is unaccompanied posting, like Bahrain and Aden, there is a fair number of married quarters and a fair number of men who are accompanied by their families.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have been listening to the debate for some time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I have not been able to speak. When R.A.F. personnel are posted overseas, it is often the case that their families are left behind in married quarters. But the families then have to leave those married quarters and find other accommodation, and this creates great difficulty. The man has to go abroad because of Service demands and the family has to stay at home and yet leave the married quarters. Will the hon. Gentleman promise to look at this important matter?
    Mr. Millan: I very much appreciate this difficulty and I am now studying it. The trouble is that there is a shortage of married quarters and when a man is posted from a station on an unaccompanied posting, the airman replacing him may need the married quarters for his own wife and family, so that there is a certain amount of disturbance of families. However, we are looking into this very difficult matter.
    The hon. Member for St. Albans asked why we were buying only 20 Basset aircraft and why we could not step up the order. The Basset is largely a replacement for the Anson communication aircraft. At the time the decision was taken to replace the Anson, there was no British aircraft in production that could fully meet the requirements that we needed under new communications arrangements which had just been devised. We need an aircraft of rather greater flexibility than the Basset provides. That is why we have restricted the Basset order. We are, however,

    579
    considering various other possibilities. Included among these are certain later Beagle aircraft. The company is, therefore, by no means being neglected.
    The hon. Member asked also whether a lighter version of the Beagle might be used as a replacement for the Chipmunk. Current holdings of the Chipmunk are adequate until the 1970s, so that there is at present no question of replacing the Chipmunk and, therefore, its replacement by the Beagle does not arise. If and when the Chipmunk comes to be replaced, however, naturally all aircraft which might be suitable will be taken into account.
    I wish to devote the rest of my remarks to aircraft procurement, because this has occupied by far the bulk of today's debate. I said earlier that I sometimes had the impression that some hon. Members thought that we were debating the aircraft industry. That applied particularly to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who, unfortunately, seems to have left us. It is not by any means the Government's policy, as has been charged by a number of hon. Members opposite, to kill the British aircraft industry. Certainly, it is not the policy of the Ministry of Defence or of the Royal Air Force to kill the British aircraft industry. Other things being equal, we would, naturally, prefer to fly British. Of course we would.
    As to the projects that we have cancelled, the British aircraft that were to be made available were acceptable neither in terms of time nor in terms of cost. Therefore, we had to go elsewhere. It is an unpleasant decision to have to buy foreign. This has been explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on a number of occasions in the House.
    A number of hon. Members seem to think that, in some way, the defence industry should subsidise civil projects. We were told, for example, that cancellation of the TSR2 might have serious effects on the cost of the BAC111. We are well aware of the interdependence in some cases of civil and military aircraft, but we must not get into a position that we can produce good civil aircraft only if some of the overheads are being
    580
    borne by military aircraft. That is one of the things that has happened over recent years.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had the pleasure of seeing "Panorama" on Monday night, when it was said that at the Boeing plant the Americans produced 500 aircraft, which were mainly military, before they showed a profit and before they got on to the 707. This bears out the point.
    Mr. Millan: The interconnection between the civil and military sides of the industry applies in the United States as well as in Britain. I have said that I recognise that there is a connection. I repeat, however, that we must not get into the position of using this as an excuse for continuing with uneconomic military aircraft which will not even arrive by the time we want them.
    A number of hon. Members, starting with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, raised the question of getting more Information about aircraft production. I must say that this comes with more than a little irony from hon. Gentlemen opposite who, when our predecessors in office, steadfastly refused over a period of 13 years to give the Committee or the House—or anybody else for that matter—any information at all about the cost or delivery dates or the specifications of military aircraft. I would just quote from what the then Prime Minister said on 21st November, 1963. He said:
    "As to the cost of an aircraft or weapons of this kind, I do not think that such details are ever disclosed, for clearly if countries overseas know the cost they can calculate, for example, the number of aircraft we have."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 1179.]
    For once, I think there was a good deal of truth in what the Leader of the Opposition said on that occasion.
    I said in my opening speech that I would be pleased if we could give more information. I think that in fact we have been considerably more forthcoming than the previous Government. I hope we shall be able to be more forthcoming in future, because I think the more this Committee, the House and the country know about the facts of the aircraft programme the more they will recognise the urgency and the acceptability, and inevitability, indeed, of the decisions which

    581
    this Government have taken over the last few months. But if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that disclosure of more information about these aircraft projects will provide them with ammunition for their case, then I can only say that they could not be more mistaken: the very reverse is in fact the truth.
    Perhaps I may now be allowed to say one or two things about each of the projects which have been discussed in some detail today. First of all, about the replacement of the Shackleton by the Comet. I must say that I was absolutely astounded to hear the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West raising a considerable amount of carping criticism about this particular decision, because here we are buying a British aircraft, a well-known and well-tried British aircraft with an international reputation, and yet he seemed to complain that because of the cost of it we should have gone for the Atlantique, which is not in service at the minute, incidentally, and which, of course, the Government considered in their general assessment of the various alternatives for the Shackleton replacement before deciding to go for the Comet. In this case, as in the other cases, every kind of alternative was considered and assessed, but we had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Comet was the right choice, that it would meet the operational requirements which we should place upon it, and that it would come into service at an acceptable time. This I should have thought was something the Committee as a whole would be delighted should have happened.
    I turn to the question of the C130, because I think there has been more discussion today—and, incidentally, more inaccurate information from the other side—about the C130 than about anything else which we have dealt with in today's debate. Let me start with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). I must say I admire the pertinacity with which he pleads the case—perfectly rightly—for his constituents and Short Brothers in Belfast, but it seemed to me that today he was really very confused indeed about the Belfast as an alternative to the C130. He jumped from talking about the Belfast strategic freighter to some new developed aircraft which would be much nearer to the C110, and I found great difficulty at various points in his speech in knowing exactly
    582
    what particular version of the Belfast he was talking about at the time.
    We did, of course, study the Belfast very carefully indeed, and we came to the conclusion that the present Belfast was essentially unsuitable for the tactical rôle, and of course, the cost of producing a developed, modified Belfast would have been very high indeed. So many modifications would have been required that we really should have needed a full programme of research and development, and we should have had all the uncertainties then of timescale and cost. We came to the conclusion that, if we tried to go ahead with the Belfast, we should put ourselves in the same position we were already in with regard to the HS681. We therefore decided that we had to discard the Belfast as a possibility.
    Naturally we are concerned about the future of Short's from the point of view of employment in Northern Ireland, but, for the first time, something practical has been done about it by the Government. This is not a problem which has suddenly come in during the last few months. I cannot remember an aircraft debate, or an employment debate, or in some cases rather inappropriate debates, during the last few years when the hon. Member for Belfast, East has not jumped up and asked the Government to provide more money and assistance for Northern Ireland.
    The Government are doing something, and I only wish that when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power they had had the gumption to do something practical for Short's in Belfast and Northern Ireland generally. If we had a number of Labour Members from Northern Ireland, we might see some results.
    Mr. McMaster: The aircraft to which I was referring was the SE515, A and B versions, one with short take-off, and one with standard take-off, as against the one suggested two years ago, the SC521B. That was a four-year old one, and that was the one on which the Minister of Defence seemed to base his argument. What does the hon. Gentleman say the Government have done for Belfast? What aircraft are being ordered there in place of the HS681?
    Mr. Millan: I am saying that we are going to see that the facilities and labour available at the moment in Short's in

    583
    Belfast are given a guarantee of employment on a long-term basis, and do not have to live from hand to mouth as they have been doing for the last 10 years, in some cases by having projects given to them simply to get the Government out of political difficulties in Northern Ireland.
    There will be ample work after the Government have made their review of the Belfast position, and Short's position. We are saying that we shall see that there is work available in Belfast for the people who are at present working in Short Brothers, whether in the aircraft industry, or in some other field. The hon. Member for Belfast, East need not jump up and down. He knows that we have given a good deal of consideration to the position in Belfast, and I have said that I have some sympathy with the employment situation there, more so as I come from an area where there is a high rate of unemployment.
    Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman made a special point earlier of saying that it is the present Government who have done something positive for Short's —it was not a question of talk, it was action—but he has not specified in any detail the nature of the action.
    Mr. Millan: I have said that we have a study going on at the moment.
    Sir J. Eden: A study?
    Mr. Millan: Yes. When the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power they made no effort at all to put the position of Short's on a satisfactory long-term basis. I should have thought that this was not a matter for party controversy. The position of Short's has been very difficult for a considerable number of years, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should even try to dispute that.
    I have other points to deal with on the C130, and I want to say something about the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). His speech was delivered with considerable vigour, but it was, nevertheless, based on a complete misconception. I tried to point this out to the hon. Gentleman when he was speaking, but he would not pay attention to me. Perhaps I can now point it out at greater length.
    584
    He suggested that we had entered into an agreement with the Americans for the purchase of the C130 which prohibited us from putting Tyne engines in that aircraft, or, if it did not prohibit us from doing that, it made it possible to do it only at prohibitive cost. The position is not that at all. The so-called agreement with the Americans, or the contract with Lockheeds, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke is not a contract or an agreement at all. It is simply an arrangement laying down certain agreements in principle about the purchase of certain American aircraft. There is no question of the Government's being contractually bound with regard to a certain kind of engine for the C130 or the Phantom. In the case of the Phantom we have said we will put Spey engines in, and we are now discussing the precise terms of the agreement from that point of view. In the case of the C130 the Tyne engine is still a possibility. It is still something on which we have finally to make up our minds.
    I shall not go into the arguments put forward by the hon. Member as to the respective technical merits of the Tyne engine and the Allison engine, because I am not an engineer and do not pretend to be able to talk about the technical details mentioned by the hon. Member. What I say is that my advice—and I have no reason to suspect that it is less technically qualified than the hon. Member's; rather the reverse—is that the Allison engine, if we go for it, will be a perfectly satisfactory one, and that the aircraft as a whole will certainly do the job we are going to call upon it to do. If we have been sold a pup by the Americans that is also true of the Australians and New Zealanders, who are going for the C130E, in its modified version.
    As for the logistic arrangements—spares—it was announced when some of the terms of the agreement were publicly disclosed that we should be in the same position as the United States Air Force in regard to both availability and costs. If hon. Members opposite think that we have bought a cheap aircraft and will be taken for a ride with the cost of spares I can only say again that they are completely wrong, because all this is already provided for in the arrangement that we have with the Americans.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Member confirm that what he has been saying is pure speculation, and not a statement of fact? He does not know what will be the overall life of the Allison engine. Nobody knows, because it has not done any development flying. He does not know how many spare engines he will need, or what the spares consumption will be, or even what the fuel consumption will be.
    Mr. Millan: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but we do know the answers to all those questions.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: You cannot.
    Mr. Millan: All these matters have been considered. The hon. Member is giving us little credit for looking into any of these points. He will have to accept my assurance that we have looked into them. They are not unfamiliar to me, and certainly not to our technical people who have been dealing with this matter.
    I want to say a few words about the P1127 and P1154. There has been a certain misrepresentation of what I said earlier about the time scale. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) brought it down to a difference of a year or 18 months, but this is not so; the difference will be at least two or three years, and it may be considerably more than that, because the P1154 was an extremely complicated and difficult aircraft to develop, and it was likely to slip in time very much more than will be the case with the P1127. There is no question of the P1127 being developed to a supersonic capacity, as a number of hon. Members opposite thought would be the case. The prospects of exports are very good.
    On all these projects—and we have now considered them at considerable length—I do not think that anything that hon. Members opposite have said has destroyed the case that the Government have deployed, or in any way invalidated the decision that we have taken. The Royal Air Force is getting excellent aircraft, and getting them in time, and at a cost which the nation can afford.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 136,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.
    Resolution to be reported.
    Report to be received this day; Committee to sit again this day.

    CERVICAL CANCER TEST CENTRE, SWANSEA
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
    12.1 a.m.
    Mr. Neil McBride: May I say, in opening this debate, how pleased I am to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health—on his first appearance to answer a debate from the Dispatch Box?
    I open this debate because of the importance of establishing a cancer test centre in the Swansea area, and because of the increasingly persistent demand from women's organisations that the exfoliative cytology service should be made available to those women who wish to use it. In Britain every year, 3,500 women die from cervical cancer. There is a high mortality rate in Wales and Swansea from this disease. That is, in itself, sufficient reason for the establishment of a cancer-test clinic for women in order that the mortality rate should be diminished as speedily as possible.
    At the meeting of the Glantawe Hospital Board on 6th January, 1965, the Medical Officer of Health for Swansea protested at the decision of the Minister of Health not to establish a clinic of this nature for the detection of cervical cancer in women in the Swansea area. The Medical Officer of Health, Dr. E. B. Meyrick, was quoted in the South Wales Evening Post of 7th January as saying:
    "This would save many lives and suffering. In many fields we are short of beds in hospitals. This service would reduce the demand."
    At the same meeting of the hospital board, Councillor Mrs. Eunice Jones said that evidence of cancer could be found by this means up to 20 years before it became apparent otherwise.

    587
    I would refer to the report of the Central Health Services Council for the year ending 31st December, 1963, the last available report of this council. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee of this body reported, on page 15, paragraph 72:
    "The Standing Medical Advisory Committee recommended that provision of cytological facilities in hospital pathology should be accelerated and recruitment of pathologists and technicians with special training should be encouraged. Regional Hospital Boards should decide the degree of priority they could give to hospital developments but they might be encouraged to treat this service as one of recognised importance for the future, justifying special consideration."
    In September, 1964, the Ministry issued a circular announcing the introduction of a series of training courses in exfoliative cytology, open to pathologists and medical laboratory technicians. As a result, the Glantawe Hospital Management Committee had a circular from the hospital board, and arrangements were made for the attendance at a training course of one pathologist and one technician from Swansea Hospital. The training course is completed, but it is impossible to set up a centre without an increase in technical staff.
    Singleton Park Hospital should be the location of a cervical test centre clinic, and this view is supported by all the women's organisations in Swansea. If centralisation of the hospitals in Swansea should occur, as was hinted in a recent Press report, this would be a natural site for such a clinic. In addition, there is a view in the medical profession that a diagnostic laboratory should serve a total population of half a million. Swansea would be the sensible place to locate this cervical cancer test centre, because this clinic would serve not only Swansea, but the areas surrounding. It is the natural centre in West Wales for the siting of a clinic for this service to be made available to women. If centralisation of hospital services occurs at Singleton Park Hospital—as I hope it will—the centre should be made available at that hospital.
    The present policy of allowing the cervical cancer test service to develop within the existing cytology service does not meet the wishes of the local women's organisations, which support the idea of the establishment of clinics. There are three difficulties in the way of expanding
    588
    the cytology service: first, finding enough trained technicians and pathologists for the work; secondly, obtaining adequate laboratory equipment; and, lastly, obtaining adequate accommodation for more technicians to be employed to meet the demands.
    The Swansea Medical Officer of Health, Dr. G. B. Meyrick, reported the South Wales Evening Post on 7th January, deplored the laisser-faire attitude of approach of the Ministry. He said that the Glantawe Hospital Management Committee had been informed that the regional hospital board had refused permission for the clinic. The firm attitude of this responsible doctor contrasts with the action of the Ministry.
    There have been other efforts to secure this service for Swansea and the whole West Wales area. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) on 5th March questioned the Ministry about the feasibility of providing a regional service for the Principality. He was told that expansion of the cytology service would occur as a part of the existing pathological service. A regional diagnostic laboratory is a feasible possibility. I would refer to a brilliant article in the Guardian on 3rd November last year by Dr. N. E. O'Neil. The establishment of a Swansea cervical cancer test centre clinic is feasible, and, in the opinion of the women's organisations in Swansea and the surrounding areas, necessary and long overdue.
    The Report of the Health Services Council for the year ended 31st December, 1963, says in paragraph 14 that fewer beds would be needed in the long run for patients with cervical cancer, and that the use of exfoliative cytology would make it unnecessary for some women to be admitted as in-patients for diagnostic examination. In paragraph 70 it says that close liaison is required between the general practitioner and hospital services so as to ensure that the taking of cervical smears by general practitioners in an area was not begun until the hospital pathological services were able to arrange for prompt examination of material sent in. In my view, that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Neath was referring to. It is a sensible approach.
    There have been many approaches from other organisations. The Trades

    589
    Union Congress at its conference last year supported the establishment of a cervical cancer test centre service. A nation-wide preventive service should be established, as in certain parts of the Continent, even behind the Iron Curtain. In China there is a more than rudimentary service in cytology available to women. Russia has an excellent cytology service available to women. The question arises whether Swansea and Wales have a right to such a service. I say that they have. The view has been expressed that Swansea is denied a cytology service because of those who are sheltering behind a curtain of wilful obstinacy.
    I have a letter from the Secretary of the National Council of Women, Mrs. Mary Stewart, who is also Chairman of the Standing Conference of Women's Organisations, and she says:
    "All the women's organisations feel keenly on this subject and hope you will be successful."
    It is believed that a five-year screening service would reduce the risk of this disease of about 75 per cent. Positive—that is, malignant—smears are rare under the age of 25 years and equally so after 60. About 1 per cent. are positive in the pre-40s. I read with interest the statement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that facilities for tests are being made available in 27 family planning centres.
    At the T.U.C. meeting in 1964 it was stated that cervical cancer causes one in 100 female deaths. It is estimated that we need 750 technicians trained in cytology to allow every woman at risk to be screened once every five years and that we require 1,000 technicians for a triennial screening. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), who feels keenly on this subject, will, if he has an opportunity to speak, comment on the establishment of a test centre clinic. My hon. Friend has, I know, made a statistical study of this matter and has gathered much important information. His statistics emphasise the necessity for detecting the disease in the pre-invasive stage.
    If the Ministry of Health has agreed that routine screening should be available to every woman at risk, then the service should he made available to every woman in the Swansea area who wishes to make
    590
    use of it. As Dr. M. E. O'Neill, writing in the Guardian, stated on 3rd March last year:
    "There is a sense of urgency in the diagnosis of cancer and intelligent women fret at the interminable delay in introducing a scheme. It is men who commonly advance and administer these services. One wonders what these people might do if cancer of the prostate gland could be detected by a reliable screening test and occurred on a scale similar to cervical cancer."
    The sting was in the last sentence, which went:
    "Be assured that there would be a diagnostic clinic in every village and a special unit at the Ministry".
    The Ministry should recognise the necessity of establishing a cancer test centre clinic for women in the Swansea area. This service should be made available to the women who are demanding that such a clinic should be set up.
    12.12 a.m.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on what will be his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. In the few minutes available to me I will try to show the statistical validity of our case for the establishment of a test centre, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) described, in Swansea.
    The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt be aware that there is a higher incidence of cancer in Wales than in the United Kingdom as a whole. A higher proportion of cases in Wales is attributable to cervical cancer and in only two of the last 10 years has the Welsh figure been less serious than the figure for Britain as a whole. While the Welsh situation is worse than that in England, the Swansea situation is even worse than either. Indeed, in the last 10 years the proportion of deaths of women from cancer which can be attributed to cervical cancer has been one-third higher in Swansea than in the country as a whole, and in four of the last 10 years the figure has been twice, or nearly twice, as high as the national figure. In only one of the last 10 years was it significantly lower than the United Kingdom figure. Although I would not expect my hon. Friend to answer this question tonight, in the long run we are entitled to find out why this should be the case in Swansea.

    591
    It might be said that my figures represent a small sample. That would be a legitimate criticism were I using one year's figures. In fact, I am giving 10 samples; the figures for each of the last 10 years. The trend is clear. I suggest that, on these valid figures, we can legitimately ask that a test centre for Swansea be established so that all women over the age of 35 who wish to may be examined. A new hospital gives us an opportunity and site for the establishment of this centre.
    I was told in an Answer from the Ministry of Health that to provide this service Swansea would need one or two technicians. We already have one in the town, so we should need only one more technician to make this service available. Swansea would make an ideal regional or area centre and I hope that the idea of creating a service of this kind for Wales will be sympathetically considered by the Ministry of Health. If this service is necessary for Scotland, then it is necessary for Wales. If it is possible for Scotland, it is also possible for Wales.
    12.15 a.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I would first thank my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) and Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) for the kind things they said about my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. They will realise, having been in the House while I have been here, how inhibiting it may be for me to be in this position. I also have to congratulate them on having this evening raised a very important subject. They have performed a service, not merely to their constituents, but to all the women of the nation in spotlighting problems faced by women after the age of about 30.
    That is not the only thing they have done. They have pursued this matter in a very good Parliamentary way. Along with the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), whom I see in his place, they have subjected my Department to Questions. They have also assisted the Department, because I can assure them that my right hon. Friend and I attach very great importance to this service, and want to see it extended, not only in Swansea and in Wales but throughout
    592
    the British Isles. This Adjournment debate enables me to underline our concern that regional boards should do everything they possibly can to extend the cytological service.
    I would first reassure my hon. Friends that the Welsh Hospital Board is fully alive to the need to provide a laboratory service that will allow screening for cervical cancer to be offered to all women at risk. We therefore have, in the first instance, the Ministry, which is fully alive to this need, and we also have, in this case, the Welsh Hospital Board which is also fully alive to the need. Where we may differ in some respects is in the way in which we can do this job so as to give the best possible service to the greatest number of people without causing too great a strain on certain sections within the Health Service.
    The Welsh Hospital Board is going forward with the development of a cytology service within the framework of its existing pathology service. We believe that that is the right thing to do. I know that two centres have been set up, in Newport and in Cardiff, but these are centres in which we hope to get some experience of the best way in which we can tackle the job. The Welsh Hospital Board is sending staff to be trained, and is making available the necessary laboratory staffs and equipment. This is in line with the policy we have urged on all boards for the provision of a cytology service.
    We fully accept the value of exfoliative cytology as a means of detecting cervical cancer and the pre-cancerous state which often exists for several years before invasive cancer develops, but this laboratory service must be carried out by fully trained and experienced staff. The taking of the cervical smear itself is relatively easy, but the examination in the laboratory for abnormal cells is pretty exacting work for which special training and experience are required—
    Mr. McBride: I appreciate that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but is he aware that the concentrated effort of the technician cannot be extended for a period of more than four hours, which underlines the necessity for the speedy training of more technicians?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark, but I hope in a moment or two to show him that we want to train more people, and that the Welsh Hospital Board intends to train more. Our view is that this work should be undertaken in hospital pathology laboratories by specially trained technicians working under the supervision of pathologists who have also been trained in cytology. We have accordingly asked boards to expand their cytology services in hospital pathology laboratories as quickly as possible so that screening for cervical cancer may be offered to all women at risk, and I hope that in the event of there being even one member of one board in any doubt as to our intentions, he will take my word as meaning precisely what we have asked them to do.
    I think hon. Members know that the main reason why these facilities cannot be provided all at once is the shortage of pathologists and medical laboratory technicians trained in cytology. Arrangements to overcome the shortage were put in train last year when five hospital authorities agreed to arrange full-time courses in cytology for pathologists and technicians at special centres in Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham and London. Obviously, if we are going to give a service that is efficient and worthwhile, we have got first of all to spend some time in training the right kind of personnel to do the job. It would not matter what our intentions were; we could set up clinics of a specific kind as distinct from clinics for other purposes, such as family planning clinics, and we could satisfy Members of Parliament that we had set up clinics, but unless we could find the trained personnel to man the clinics we should be serving no useful purpose at all. We are trying to ensure that there are special allocations to meet the cost of running these courses, both as regards capital and current expenditure. That, of course, includes extra staff.
    The intention was that on completion of their courses the candidates would be able to play their part in establishing or expanding hospital cytology services in their regions and help in furthering local training arrangements. I can assure hon. Members that the Welsh Hospital Board
    594
    is taking full advantage of these courses to train the staff it needs to extend the present service.
    For the purpose of this debate I have taken the Swansea area to be coterminous with that of the Glantawe Hospital Management Committee area. Let me say to my hon. Friend how grateful I am to him that he mentioned Glantawe, because if he had not I would not have known how to pronounce it. In this area there are laboratories undertaking the work of exfoliative cytology at the Swansea General Hospital and at the Llanelly Hospital. The Swansea General Hospital receives smears from the gynaecological out-patient department at Singleton Park, the family planning clinic, Swansea, and the Eaton House Gynaecological Clinic at Swansea. They are also starting to examine smears from Family Planning Association clinics in Brecon and West Glamorgan. The Llanelly Hospital receives cervical smears for cytology from the gynaecological department there and the Amman Valley Hospital.
    At the Swansea Hospital there are one trained pathologist and one technician, and at the Llanelly Hospital, where there is no trained technician, a number of smears are examined by a pathologist. At the present time staff at Swansea are undertaking the screening of some 240 to 250 cases a month, which is a substantial increase over the numbers previously tested, while at Llanelly they are dealing with some 100 cases a month. Both departments, of course, also undertake other pathology work.
    At the present time the laboratories at both hospitals are receiving smears from patients seen at clinics for other reasons. It is hoped as soon as trained staff are available and other resources permit to extend screening to well women. This is what we want to aim at. We want to aim not merely at maintaining a situation where we get smears incidental to other treatment a woman is having but we want to aim at the provision of a service for all well women so that we avoid the dangers in the first period where it is so important to get to know what is happening. It is considered that an additional three or four trained technicians would be required to set in train a full screening service, that is to examine all women of 35 years of age

    595
    and over once every five years. Apart from the additional trained technicians we should require extra laboratory space at the Swansea Hospital. This would be desirable, but we feel that the additional work could be carried out at a pinch in the existing laboratory.
    Additional space should be available on completion of the phase of the building of Singleton Park Hospital now under construction. The final phase of the hospital is now being planned and when finished a completely adequate laboratory service for the area, including the needs of a cytology service, will be available. It is necessary in setting up a screening service to consider what is to be done with women who are shown to require treatment of one kind or another. This may place an extra burden on gynaecological and radiotherapy departments.
    The position in Swansea is that the gynaecological department is working under heavy pressure even at present but we hope that another consultant gynaecologist will be appointed shortly. His appointment to this department will be in part to deal with the work arising from an extension of the screening arrangements. The radiotherapy department, which is due to be replaced by a new department at the Singleton Park Hospital towards the end of June, 1966, is at present able to supply such treatment as is shown to be necessary as a result of cytology screening. Since the new department should be very much more effective, an extension of screening is not thought to present a problem for radiotherapy.
    Hon. Members will appreciate that we can spend only a limited amount of time
    596
    in this debate and I therefore want to try and clear up a misstatement which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East inadvertently made. I can assure him that the Ministry of Health did not refuse to allow the Medical Officer of Health at Swansea to set up a specific clinic. It may be that the regional board did, but my hon. Friend said that the Ministry had done it and I wanted to make sure that that did not go on the record without correction. I am sorry that my hon. Friend criticised unnamed persons for wilful obstinacy. It is true to say that the regional boards, in Wales and throughout the country, do a first-class job of work and we should give them the greatest measure of encouragement in whatever work they are doing.
    I accept the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West because he was quoting from an Answer which I sent to him recently. I cannot at this stage start analysing and making comparisons with other similar areas but the figures are disturbing. I assure both my hon. Friends that we at the Ministry want to see an extension of the service, but that extension must be done in such a way as to ensure that there is no displacement of other services. This can be done only when we have trained the staff necessary to do the job required of them. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my thanks for initiating this debate. I believe that there is a lot of work to be done in this field. We are determined as far as humanly possible to see that it is done in the quickest possible time.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Flashing Lamps)
  Motor Vehicles (Flashing Lamps)
  Vehicles (Mudflaps)
  Vehicles (Mudflaps)
  Transport Services (Co-ordination)
  Transport Services (Co-ordination)
  Stolen Vehicles
  Stolen Vehicles
  Road Hauliers (Safety Offences)
  Road Hauliers (Safety Offences)
  Unusable Vehicles (Registration Books)
  Unusable Vehicles (Registration Books)
  Parking (Disc System)
  Parking (Disc System)
  Drink and Driving Campaign
  Drink and Driving Campaign
  Rutherford-Palmer Headlight
  Rutherford-Palmer Headlight
  Safety Belts
  Safety Belts
  Industrial Exhibition of Wales
  Industrial Exhibition of Wales
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Rush Hours (Congestion)
  Rush Hours (Congestion)
ROADS
  Motorways (Fog)
  Motorways (Fog)
  Rural Class III Roads (Upgrading)
  Rural Class III Roads (Upgrading)
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Experimental Traffic Lights, Bromley Common
  Experimental Traffic Lights, Bromley Common
  A.40, Gerrards Cross (Pedestrian Subway)
  A.40, Gerrards Cross (Pedestrian Subway)
  King's Lynn By-Pass (Priority)
  King's Lynn By-Pass (Priority)
  Gants Hill Roundabout, Ilford (Proposed Flyover)
  Gants Hill Roundabout, Ilford (Proposed Flyover)
  M.11
  M.11
  Andover By-Pass
  Andover By-Pass
  Parking (Town Centres)
  Parking (Town Centres)
  Hastings Road (Speed Limit)
  Hastings Road (Speed Limit)
  Trunk Roads (Toilet Facilities)
  Trunk Roads (Toilet Facilities)
  Road Safety Movement (Golden Jubilee)
  Road Safety Movement (Golden Jubilee)
  Western Avenue
  Western Avenue
  Roundabouts (Give Way Notices)
  Roundabouts (Give Way Notices)
  Level Crossings (Road Surfaces)
  Level Crossings (Road Surfaces)
  A.1 (Fairburn)
  A.1 (Fairburn)
  M/
  M/
  Golden Cross Crossroads, Stroud (Improvement)
  Golden Cross Crossroads, Stroud (Improvement)
  Wandsworth Bridge
  Wandsworth Bridge
  A.56 (Helsby-Frodsham By-Pass)
  A.56 (Helsby-Frodsham By-Pass)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Drivers' Signals)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Drivers' Signals)
  Traffic Signals, Willingdon
  Traffic Signals, Willingdon
  Traffic Signs (Grants)
  Traffic Signs (Grants)
  Experimental Crossing Scheme, Harringay
  Experimental Crossing Scheme, Harringay
  M.62
  M.62
  Parking Meter Schemes
  Parking Meter Schemes
  Major Road Schemes (Objections)
  Major Road Schemes (Objections)
  Basingstoke Motorway
  Basingstoke Motorway
  Congestion at Holiday Times
  Congestion at Holiday Times
  South-West
  South-West
SHIPPING
  National Ports Council (Report)
  National Ports Council (Report)
  London Docks (Delays)
  London Docks (Delays)
  Shipping Services (Fares)
  Shipping Services (Fares)
  Docks (Communications)
  Docks (Communications)
RAILWAYS
  Branch Lines, Torrington (Closure)
  Branch Lines, Torrington (Closure)
  Passenger Services, Cornwall
  Passenger Services, Cornwall
  King's Lynn-Dereham Line
  King's Lynn-Dereham Line
  Consultative Committees (Financial Information)
  Consultative Committees (Financial Information)
  Railway Houses (Disposal)
  Railway Houses (Disposal)
  Alternative Services (Buses)
  Alternative Services (Buses)
  Stations, Derbyshire
  Stations, Derbyshire
  Superannuitants (Representations)
  Superannuitants (Representations)
  Private Cars (Increase in Transport Charges)
  Private Cars (Increase in Transport Charges)
  Passenger Line Services (Closure Proposals)
  Passenger Line Services (Closure Proposals)
  QUESTIONS (FRIDAYS)
  QUESTIONS (FRIDAYS)
  PARLIAMENTARY SESSION
  PARLIAMENTARY SESSION
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Police and Porters, London Airport (Earnings)
  Police and Porters, London Airport (Earnings)
  Handling and Storage Buildings (London Airport)
  Handling and Storage Buildings (London Airport)
  Flying Clubs (Petrol Rebate)
  Flying Clubs (Petrol Rebate)
  Flight Control Equipment
  Flight Control Equipment
  Trident Aircraft
  Trident Aircraft
  Aircraft Passengers (Wheel Chairs)
  Aircraft Passengers (Wheel Chairs)
  Flight Operations Inspectorate
  Flight Operations Inspectorate
  Soundproofing of Private Dwellings, London Airport
  Soundproofing of Private Dwellings, London Airport
  Sonic Boom Demonstration
  Sonic Boom Demonstration
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Industry (Report)
  Fishing Industry (Report)
  Factory Farming
  Factory Farming
  Land Drainage (River Foss)
  Land Drainage (River Foss)
  Potato Marketing Board (Cost)
  Potato Marketing Board (Cost)
  Agricultural Efficiency
  Agricultural Efficiency
SCOTLAND
  Hillington Road, Glasgow
  Hillington Road, Glasgow
  Larbert-Bellsdyke Road (Accidents)
  Larbert-Bellsdyke Road (Accidents)
  Hospital Patients (Attendance Costs)
  Hospital Patients (Attendance Costs)
  Hospital Facilities
  Hospital Facilities
  Buchanan Report
  Buchanan Report
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Pre-School Play Groups
  Pre-School Play Groups
  Hydro-Electric Board (Fada Fionn Scheme)
  Hydro-Electric Board (Fada Fionn Scheme)
  Murders
  Murders
  General Elections (Postal Votes)
  General Elections (Postal Votes)
  The Highlands
  The Highlands
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Plasterboard
  Plasterboard
  Public Buildings (Heating)
  Public Buildings (Heating)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Mining Machinery
  Mining Machinery
  Boating and Sailing (Seamanship Tests)
  Boating and Sailing (Seamanship Tests)
  Export Market Research (Grant)
  Export Market Research (Grant)
  Factory, Bellshill (Closure)
  Factory, Bellshill (Closure)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Colne Valley)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Colne Valley)
  Firm (Trading Practices)
  Firm (Trading Practices)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Minor Works
  Minor Works
  School, Oldbury (Broadwell)
  School, Oldbury (Broadwell)
  School Heating (Solid Fuels)
  School Heating (Solid Fuels)
  Burntwood
  Burntwood
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Valuation Office (Staff)
  Valuation Office (Staff)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  United States Aircraft
  United States Aircraft
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Solway Bay Barrage Scheme
  Solway Bay Barrage Scheme
HOSPITALS
  Surgical Instruments (Sterilisation)
  Surgical Instruments (Sterilisation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Treatment of Offenders (Advisory Council)
  Treatment of Offenders (Advisory Council)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Advisory Officer)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Advisory Officer)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  General Elections (Postal Votes)
  General Elections (Postal Votes)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Housing Schemes (Heating)
  Housing Schemes (Heating)
  Solid Smokeless Fuel (Production)
  Solid Smokeless Fuel (Production)
  Planning Inquiry (Reeds Lane, Moreton)
  Planning Inquiry (Reeds Lane, Moreton)
HOUSING
  New Dwellings (Outside Flues)
  New Dwellings (Outside Flues)
EMPLOYMENT
  Offices, Shops and Railway Premises (Inspections)
  Offices, Shops and Railway Premises (Inspections)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Liquefied Methane
  Liquefied Methane
  Fuel Oil Imports (Cost)
  Fuel Oil Imports (Cost)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester

LORD RENWICK
Sir Robert Burnham Renwick, Baronet, K.B.E., having been created Baron Renwick, of Coombe in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD HINTON OF BANKSIDE
Sir Christopher Hinton, K.B.E., having been created Baron Hinton of Bankside, of Dulwich in the County of London, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Knutsford—Took the Oath.

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES IN COUNTY COURTS
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to confer on the county courts jurisdiction to try undefended divorce cases; and what is the estimated annual saving to the taxpayer which would be effected by this reform of the law.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Government will consider the first of the noble and learned Viscount's questions in the light of a detailed inquiry which I have initiated into the second.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recollect that the first law reform he recommended in his book Law Reform
56
Now was this transfer of jurisdiction? Did he not say then:
"In any case, undefended divorce cases should be transferred to the county courts instead of, as now, being tried by county court judges acting as High Court judges for the day"?
Does this transfer of jurisdiction depend on just the financial consideration? Would it not be to the great convenience of many litigants if this transfer were made?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not in any way unsympathetic to the proposal. I think I myself suggested it first to the Committee on Divorce Procedure presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, fifteen years ago. But the views of the Church of England and other Churches have to be considered, and one would have to see what saving would be effected. This is not easy to ascertain. I am at the moment having a number of specimen divorce bills of costs taxed by experienced registrars of county courts, to see exactly what the saving would be.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, could not the noble and learned Lord give an approximate estimate, not at all precise, as to the amount of saving that would be likely to be involved? Am I not right in thinking that some investigation of the possible saving of costs has been made? And, quite apart from the saving in costs, would it not be to the convenience of many litigants if this transfer were made? Further, bearing in mind that the noble and learned Lord reached his conclusions many years ago, as he indicated, may we have an indication of the possible date when, if he is in favour of this reform, it may be carried into effect?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some preliminary inquiry has been made into the saving which would be effected, but the question is not altogether easy. For example, at first sight there would be a saving, in so far as the amount of court fees payable in the county court are less than those in the High Court; but as the fees go to the Exchequer this does not represent, in fact, a saving to the Exchequer. As to the date when a decision will be made, I am afraid I am unable to give the noble and learned Viscount a date. There is, of course, a committee of the Church of England considering this and other matters, of

57
which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter is the chairman. I shall wish to see how soon that committee is likely to report.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may we take it that the noble and learned Lord's opinion has not changed from the opinion he expressed so firmly many months ago?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My personal opinion has not changed.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask whether in the consideration of this matter full weight will be given to the convenience and saving of expense to the litigants themselves, apart from the purely legal costs? Would the noble and learned Lord agree with my own view that the saving to litigants in not having to make a journey to London would possibly be even greater than the saving of the purely legal costs?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. The saving to the litigant is, of course, a question of primary concern; but in the dissolution of marriage we are concerned also with an alteration of status and that has to be taken into account.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what particular religious principle will be transgressed if this reform is introduced?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this matter was carefully considered by, among others, the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and they took the view, which had been impressed on them by the Churches, that the status of marriage would be lowered in the eyes of the public if this matter were dealt with in the county courts rather than in the High Court.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he agrees with me that the current emphasis in Church of England thought on this matter is on the necessity for a thorough and radical reform of divorce procedures, rather than on the maintenance of some particular institution?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that that is so. That is one of the reasons why, if too long a period of time does not elapse, I should prefer, before deciding this question, to learn the views of the committee presided over by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while agreeing with the right reverend Prelate in the views he has expressed, may I ask whether the noble and learned Lord really thinks that a question of status is involved between a hearing before a county court judge, sitting as a High Court Judge on a commission of one and being addressed as "My Lord", and a county court judge, sitting in precisely the same court the very same day and being addressed as "Your Honour"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are matters of opinion, but they are questions on which the Churches are entitled to express their own views.

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS AND COMMITTALS
3.1 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce legislation which would allow a magistrates' court to commit a defendant to quarter sessions for sentence on all the charges on which he appears before the magistrates, where there is to be a committal on one or more of such charges, so that quarter sessions may deal with all the offences with which he is charged, whether they be indictable or summary.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering this suggestion, together with others that have been put to him relating to the procedure of magistrates' courts.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his

59
Answer, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that under present arrangements the summary offence has to be adjourned sine die while the case goes to quarter sessions, and therefore it hangs over the head of the defendant for a considerable time? Would the noble Lord not agree that it would be much better for all concerned—defendant, prosecution and the bench—if everything could be settled at one time and dealt with at quarter sessions?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are very much aware of the point which has been made by the noble Lord. Clearly there is something to be said for enabling quarter sessions to dispose of all charges, both summary and indictable, in the manner the noble Lord has suggested. But there are other considerations, including the fact that a new procedure would be of limited utility, because it could not apply to a series of offences dealt with by different courts at different times. My right honourable friend feels it advisable to consult the court interest in this matter before coming to any conclusion.

RADIO AND TELEVISION SERVICES
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether paragraph 73 of the White Paper entitled, A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps, in which the hope is expressed that the introduction of additional channels for television will encourage further experiment and development, means that further television and radio stations are likely soon to be licensed; and, if so, whether these stations will be operated by the B.B.C., Independent Television, by both or by any other educational bodies.]
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government is reviewing broadcasting policy in a variety of its aspects. The question whether further services of television and sound radio should be authorised, and, if so, how
60
they would be constituted, organised and financed, is one of the issues under examination. This review will inevitably take a considerable time to complete. Her Majesty's Government will announce its conclusions as soon as it has reached them.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, is he not aware that it is now some eighteen months since the Prime Minister declared his intention of establishing a University of the Air? Is he not also aware that there is great demand in this country for a variety of television programmes, not merely for a second independent television service, but also for more educational programmes? Will the Government be pressing ahead with its plans for these educational stations?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government is aware of all the points that the noble Earl has mentioned. It all boils down to a question of priorities, to a question of which are first essentials; and, frankly, I do not think that the Government could put broadcasting as a top priority.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that education is a very high priority in this country. I think that that is agreed on both sides of the House. While recognising that there are already a certain number of closed-circuit television installations in universities, I would ask: would not the noble Lord agree that a larger number of people would benefit, if some of these lectures and demonstrations were also broadcast over the air?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, again I agree with the point which the noble Earl has put forward, but it still comes down to a question of what shall be done first.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the crux of the matter is really finance? So far as I can see at the moment, from the White Paper, the Government will be fully committed on the money that has already been handed over to the Arts Council.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a statement on the sound-proofing of houses near London Airport.
The House may also like to know that, in view of the large number of speakers in this afternoon's debate, suppers will be available from 7.30 p.m.

BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WALTON AND WEYBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE rose to call attention to the problems of immigration and, in particular, to the steps now proposed for preventing the admission of persons not entitled to enter and settle in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I tabled this Motion shortly after February 4, when the Home Secretary's proposals for stopping the evasion of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act were communicated to your Lordships' House. I thought then that those proposals required careful examination and also that, now that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act had been in force for nearly three years, the time had come for its operation to be reviewed. A great deal has happened since I tabled this Motion—in particular, the Statement that was made yesterday by the Prime Minister.
I know that the subject I am raising this afternoon has great political content and arouses deep feelings, and that it can arouse great controversy and heat. But I hope that our debate will be not highly controversial, but constructive, and of a
62
dispassionate and serious character. Difficult though it may be for me, I hope that what I propose to say will not arouse controversy. At the same time, I feel that it is our duty, no matter in what part of the House we may sit, to speak frankly, and also objectively, about the problems of immigration. We cannot ignore them as if they did not exist. When the problems are real and human, and affect people's lives and happiness, we cannot just sweep them under the carpet.
The settling in this country of large numbers of coloured immigrants is a comparatively new trend, but a large number of immigrants came to reside here before the 1962 Act was passed. We are by nature a very insular people, and perhaps we do not take so kindly to strangers as we should. It is, I think, still the case that if you move your home from one village to another in a neighbouring county you may be regarded for quite a number of years as a foreigner in the village to which you have moved. This feeling does not, I think, exist to anything like the same extent in the towns. But even in a town difficulties may arise when a large number of people from another part of England, or, indeed, from another part of the United Kingdom, go to live there.
In Northamptonshire we had the development of Corby, with the immigration of a large number of Scottish people, and that caused some difficulties for some time. I remember, too, a scheme—a good scheme—which was put into operation for providing homes for people from Birmingham in a town in my former constituency. The homes for the Birmingham people, who are very nice people—I am sure the right reverend Prelate will agree with that—were built on the outskirts of the old town, and for a time there was considerable concern lest the town would be divided into two distinct communities. That has not happened; but it might well have done if efforts had not been made to prevent it. How much more difficult it must be for immigrants with their different background and way of life to be accepted as members of the community in which they live! Yet, my Lords, I trust that there is not one of us who does not hope that this will happen. But it must, I think, be recognised that it will take time, and maybe very considerable time.
We all accept the two propositions stated in the Prime Minister's Statement yesterday: first, that immigrants resident here should be treated for all purposes as citizens of the United Kingdom, without discrimination; and, secondly, that we cannot have first and second class citizens in this country. The second proposition is really just another way of stating the first. We are all, also, I am sure, opposed to racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred. But I should not be frank if I did not confess that I have some doubts whether the removal of racial discrimination can be effected by Act of Parliament.
As to incitement to racial hatred, it is some time since I had to consider the law with regard to that, but I am under the impression that the Public Order Act is very far-reaching and may be regarded as adequate. Still, if the law does require to be strengthened, by all means let us consider that. But the passage of a Bill dealing with these matters will not of itself be enough to prevent the development of first and second class citizens in this country. No one, I am sure, wants that to happen, and to prevent its happening much will depend on education, and also—this I regard as most important—on the character of the employment available to the immigrants. There are very difficult problems involved.
While I welcome, as I said yesterday, the appointment of a Minister to coordinate Government action and to promote the efforts of local authorities and voluntary societies, that alone will not suffice to provide a solution of the problem. It is natural that immigrants from one part of the Commonwealth should tend to congregate where other immigrants from that territory already live: for instance, that Pakistanis should go to where Pakistanis already are. This natural tendency, which I think we must recognise, of itself creates problems of housing and accommodation. This is one side, and a very important aspect of the matter. We have some 800,000 immigrants—is it not?—resident here; a small proportion of our total population, but concentrated in particular areas and putting a great strain on the resources of the authorities in those areas.
I have begun my speech by referring to this aspect because I think it is really
64
the most important. At the same time, there is linked with it the question of further immigration. The larger the number of immigrants who come to live here, the more acute become the problems of what is sometimes called integration. I am not at all fond of that word; it is capable of a number of different interpretations. I have tried to find an alternative word which better represents what I think we all feel about this question. I do not know if "assimilation" is a better word; I rather doubt it. But surely what we want to achieve is that immigrants who come to live here are fully accepted as members of the communities in which they live.
It is because of the difficulties to which I have referred that it is now accepted by both the main Parties that there must be control over the number of immigrants from Commonwealth countries. The Labour Party have clearly accepted that by their extension of the 1962 Act, and by the steps that the Government have announced to stop evasion of that Act: and, indeed, it was implicit in the Statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister. Quite where the Liberal Party stand on this, I do not know; but perhaps we shall hear in the course of this debate. Surely it must be recognised that it just is not possible for this country, as my right honourable friend Mr. Thorneycroft said last Saturday, with
"the magnetic pull of one of the richest societies in the world, with the highest standards of social services, to accept an unlimited number of immigrants as residents."
I am not discussing what limit there should be; views about that, no doubt, differ. But surely it is clear that the number of immigrants must bear some relation to the progress made with regard to the immigrants already here.
I played some part in getting the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill through another place. It was the most controversial piece of legislation—more hotly opposed than any other piece of legislation—with which I had anything to do as a member of the then Government. Perhaps if both the main Parties had recognised then, as they do now, the need for control over immigration into this thickly populated Island of ours, and had concentrated on making it the best possible measure, we might have had a better Act.
However that may be, it was certainly the best Act that we could get at the time, and it hardly lies in the mouth of the Liberal Party—which opposed the Bill—or any member of it, now to seek to make Party capital, as, to my surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did yesterday, by pointing out that most of the evasion of the Act occurred during the lifetime of the last Government. If the Liberal Party had had their way, there would not have been any control at all. But I do not wish to-day to engage in recriminations about the past. Indeed, I should not have said what I have just said but for that observation made yesterday. I prefer to concentrate on the present situation and upon the future, rather than upon the past.
I want to turn now to consideration of the 1962 Act, and of the steps the Home Secretary announced on February 4. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that, if there have to be controls, it is essential that they should be effective. Whatever limit is fixed, the controls should be effective to secure its observance. I ask your Lordships to note one point. Under the 1962 Act controls were not imposed on the number of immigrants who could come to live here: the controls imposed were linked to employment and employability, and not to residence. To be allowed in, those who wish to be employed here have to be in possession of current vouchers issued by the Ministry of Labour. If I may remind your Lordships, there are three categories of voucher: first, for those who can show that they have a genuine job to go to; secondly, for those who possess skill or qualifications likely to be useful in this country; and, thirdly, for those who seek employment but have no special skills or qualifications.
Between December 28, 1963, and December 25, 1964, there were, I understand, nearly 20,000 applicants for vouchers in the first category, of which slightly more than 50 per cent. were granted vouchers; nearly 9,000 applicants in the second category, of which 8,001 were granted vouchers; and in the third category, 69,000 applicants, of whom only 2,221 were vouchered. Your Lordships will note how very few in the third category obtained vouchers. Clearly, very strict limits have been placed on the admission of those who
66
seek employment but have no special skills or qualifications. It is also to be noted that any further restriction to any material extent in the number of vouchers issued must be at the expense either of those who can show that they have a genuine job to go to, or of those who possess special skills or qualifications.
The totals of the figures I have given show that, out of a total of 97,415 applications, vouchers were issued in 20,824 cases. I want to contrast that figure with the number of immigrants admitted to this country last year. But before I do so, may I digress for a moment? I should not like it to be thought that I do not recognise the valuable work done by immigrants in our hospitals, our transport services and in many other spheres. The total number of recorded Commonwealth immigrants last year was, I understand (the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will correct me if I am wrong), 406,601. That is the gross figure. The net figure is, of course, far less—75,000-odd. But whether you contrast the figure of vouchers issued with the gross or the net figure, it is apparent that the controls under the 1962 Act operate only over a very small part of the field. That is the first point I wish to stress. If the number of immigrants who got in when they should not have done—not less than 10,000 in the last two years—is taken into account, the contrast is even more striking. If one assumes that 5,000 came in last year, then we have vouchers issued 20,824, and net immigration of 80,000-odd.
The first question I want to put to Her Majesty's Government, in the light of these figures and our experience since 1962, is whether the area of control should not be enlarged. If there has to be a limit to the number who can come and reside here, should not the number who wish to reside here, and not just those who seek employment, be subject to control? Is not too much attention now paid to the employment factor, and insufficient to the other factors involved? Under the Act, admission cannot be refused to the wife or child under sixteen of any Commonwealth citizen resident here, or seeking to enter with a Commonwealth citizen who is allowed to enter. As the question was asked by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard some days ago, may I say that the word

67
"child" in this context covers step-children, adopted children and illegitimate children? I do not suggest that the controls should operate to separate husband and wife and family. What I do suggest is that it is the number of residents that matters, and that the controls should apply to all who seek to come to live here. That would mean that, whatever limit is fixed, the husband, his wife and his dependants would count against that limit.
I should like to know the Government's attitude to this point. Is it not the case that vouchers are now issued without any regard to the number of dependants who will, consequent to the grant of a voucher, get an unqualified right to admission? Such a change as I suggest would involve amendment of the 1962 Act, and I shall have something more to say about that later.
Conditions restricting the period for which a Commonwealth immigrant may remain here, with or without conditions restricting his employment or occupation while he is here, can be imposed on all Commonwealth immigrants except voucher holders and wives and dependants. Should it not be possible to impose such a condition on a voucher holder? Suppose that someone comes here to take a job of limited duration. Should it not be possible to impose a condition limiting his stay to the duration of his job? At present, that cannot be done. If the job is genuine, he can get a voucher; and even if the job is to last only six months he will be entitled to remain here for the rest of his life. It is also a curious fact that if a man is allowed to enter subject to a condition, for instance, that he should stay for, say, only six months, no similar condition can be imposed upon his wife and dependants. Is this right? Does it not provide a very considerable loophole? Does it not enable a dependant to jump the queue of applicants for vouchers?
Students (that is to say those who wish to attend a course of study at a university, college, school or other institution) cannot be refused admission. There is no requirement that the student should be under a certain age, or that the course of study should last more than a certain time. It may be that it will last for only a few weeks. The wife and dependants of a married student are entitled
68
to admission. His entry can be made subject to the condition that he leaves the country when the course is over. But no such condition can be imposed on his wife and dependants. Should not this situation be altered? Is there not a gap here, and a gap of some magnitude? This, too, of course, would involve legislation.
On February 23 the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that one of the ways of evading the Act was for someone to claim to be a dependant under sixteen, when, in fact, he was not. The noble Lord said, if I may quote his words:
"It is not always easy to expose a false claim of that kind, especially when supported by a genuine passport, and it is thought that a considerable number have succeeded in gaining admission in this way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 263 (No. 42), col. 681, February 23, 1965.]
I must confess that I found that statement rather puzzling. Does not the genuine passport reveal the holder's date of birth? Is it suggested that genuine passports contain false entries? Do the passports issued to individuals show dependency? It is all very well for the Home Secretary to tell the country that stricter use will be made of the existing powers of control, and that fresh instructions are being given to immigration officers. How can they establish that an incorrect age has been given? How can they establish that a claim of dependency is false? They cannot detain the would-be immigrant until they have made inquiries in the immigrant's home country. We have no Ellis Island, and I am not suggesting that we should have one; but I cannot believe that, with the best will in the world, immigration officers will be able to detect many of those who seek entry by pretending to be dependants under sixteen.
The figures given yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, seem to me to confirm this view. Unauthorised entry at a rate of 5,000 a year over the last two years means an average weekly entry of 96. For the four weeks of February that would mean 384; and only 129 were refused admission in that month. It must and should be easy to check in the countries of origin the validity of claims to dependency, and I assume that the Commission of which we were told yesterday will be considering ways and means of doing that. I welcome the appointment of that Com-

69
mission and I hope that it will be successful. But, at the same time, is it not apparent that no further inquiry is necessary in regard to some of the methods of evasion that have been used, and no doubt are still being used? Is it not clear that inquiry overseas with regard to them is not necessary and that what is required is revision of our domestic machinery?
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also told us on February 23 that
"numbers of people admitted for an ostensibly temporary purpose, mainly as visitors and students, have stayed on."—[col. 681]
On February 4 the Home Secretary said that it was proposed to make fuller use of the power to impose conditions specifying the period for which a Commonwealth citizen is admitted as a student or visitor. It is no good making fuller use of the existing power to impose such conditions—or, indeed, widening the powers to impose conditions—unless there are ways by which a breach of the conditions can be found out; and if there are no means of doing this, making fuller use of the existing powers is just a waste of time.
Are there any means of discovering breaches of conditions? So far as I am aware, there are none. If a student is allowed to enter on condition that he stays only six months to attend a particular course at a particular institution, are any steps taken to see that he does in fact go there? Are any steps taken to find out whether he has complied with the conditions? Once he has entered this country, is he not free to go where he likes? And if, at the end of his studies, he decides to break the conditions imposed on his entry, can he be found out and traced? Can the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, tell us how many people who have broken the conditions imposed have been traced?
We were also told by the Home Secretary that, when persons were prosecuted for having evaded the control or having failed to comply with conditions of entry and were convicted, if the courts made recommendation for deportation effect would be given to that unless there were very strong reasons for making special exemptions. It would be interesting to know how many have been prosecuted; how many prosecutions are pending for having evaded the control; how many
70
prosecutions have been brought, or are pending, for having failed to comply with conditions of entry; and also to know how many recommendations for deportation have in fact been made? With 10,000 having evaded the controls in the last two years, I suspect that the number of prosecutions brought or pending is very small indeed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount at this point? Is he aware that at the end of January last, that is, 31 months after the Act came into force, conditional entry had been imposed in only 350 cases? Many of that number have complied with the conditions, and so there could not possibly be many convictions.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The prosecutions, according to the Home Secretary's statement, would be either for evading control or for failing to comply with conditions of entry, and I was dealing with both heads. We know, according to the noble Lord's statement, that there are 10,000 immigrants here who ought not to be here. They have, presumably, either evaded control or failed to comply with conditions of entry.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount again, but there is here a point of importance. If conditions are not imposed on entry, then, of course, people are not evading the control, in the sense that they are not doing anything illegal if they do not go home. They commit an offence only when they do not go home in compliance with conditions.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: That really reinforces the force of my argument as to the need for an amendment of the law. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I was seeking to draw attention to the number of prosecutions brought or pending, and saying that the fact that that must be a very small proportion of the total number of cases is indicative of the fact, as I believe it to be, that the machinery requires to be improved; and the noble Lord's intervention on an important point, I think, underlines that.
The noble Lord will agree with me that there has been very considerable anxiety, and I think there still is, about the extent of the evasion. No doubt it was partly to allay this anxiety that the

71
Home Secretary made his statement. At the time it sounded most impressive, and I would say, quite frankly, that the Home Secretary could not have done more without amending the 1962 Act. I recognise that. That leads me to this point, which I want to stress. Should not the Home Secretary seek to amend the 1962 Act, and to do it without delay? The Prime Minister told us yesterday that
"the degree of evasion was almost fatally eroding the Act".
Can we not at least do something to stop evasion, by amending that Act now? Need we wait, indeed should we wait, until the mission of which we were informed yesterday has reported? I imagine it will take a considerable time for the mission to complete its task, much longer than 100 days. Then it will have to report and its report will have to be considered. That may lead to legislation which will have to be drafted, and it seems to me to be likely that many months, it may be years, will pass before that legislation is enacted. During that time the evasion will continue to go on as it is going on to-day. Are we not in a position to legislate now in some respects without waiting for the mission to complete its task?
I would suggest that the respects in which we could legislate are these. First, to provide for control over the number of people who wish to come and live here. As I have pointed out, that is not the case at present. Secondly, should we not without delay amend the 1962 Act so as to make it possible to impose conditions as to their length of stay on voucher holders who come for employment of limited duration? Thirdly, should the Government not take power to impose similar conditions on wives and dependants to those imposed on the men on whom they are dependent?—for that, again, cannot be done now. Fourthly and finally (and surely this is most important) should not the 1962 Act be amended so as to provide machinery whereby a breach of conditions imposed can be found out and the offenders traced? What that machinery should be may be a difficult question to resolve; I recognise that, But the visit to Commonwealth countries by the mission is not, I think, likely to afford any help with regard to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us—and, again, if I may, I will quote his
72
words—that numbers of students admitted for an ostensibly temporary purpose have stayed on. Is this not an obvious way in which controls are being evaded? And it will not be stopped by just imposing conditions on those students, unless the breach of those conditions can be detected and the offenders traced. Again I ask, should not this loophole be stopped and stopped without delay? Is there any point in waiting for the report of the mission before stopping it?
I can well see that further legislation on this subject is not a task that this Government would very willingly undertake—or, indeed, I would say, any Government. It was only after long deliberation and with considerable reluctance that the Conservative Government introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. But we came then to the conclusion that it was our duty to do it, and I suggest that it is the duty of the present Government to amend that Act, and to do so without delay so as to stop evasion which it is clearly within our power to stop. I believe it is not only in our own interests, but also in the interests of the immigrants already here and all those who wish to come here, that it should be stopped, so far as we can stop it, and as soon as possible.
I have spoken for long enough. I know that there are a number of aspects on which I have not touched—for instance, the question of health examinations—but I feel I have spoken long enough. I have made the main theme of my speech the need for amending legislation, without delay, for, in my view, the need for that is urgent. It may be that we cannot, until we receive the report of this mission, completely stop evasion; but we can do a great deal about it, and that is something that can be done by us. An amendment on the lines I have suggested can be made without visits to overseas countries.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I clear up one point which I did not quite follow? That is the first of the proposals which the noble and learned Viscount put forward. Is he putting forward that there should be an overall restriction on the number of immigrants into this country, and that a figure should be fixed by the Government and no more should be allowed in?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: What I was suggesting in the first proposition I put forward was that the control should be related to the number of people who intend to reside here, not just those who come here for employment. Whatever limit there may be—and a lot of factors will have to be taken into account in considering the limit—I was arguing that if it is important to control that number, if we have got to restrict immigration so as to limit the number of those who intend to reside here, ourlegislation should be geared to that—not just to employment—with the effect, if I may repeat it, that you count against the limit, whatever it is, not only the person who comes for employment but also the wives and dependants. You would against that limit count all who intended to reside here. It is a different approach from that of the 1962 Act; and, in the light of experience, I would suggest that the 1962 Act in that respect had too narrow an approach.
I have made the main theme of my speech the need for amending legislation without delay. If amending legislation is not introduced the situation may well deteriorate, and that none of us would wish to see happen. As I said at the beginning, it is not my desire to provoke controversy or engender heat in this debate. I hope that what I have said will not do so. I trust, too, that because I have said so much about the need for amending legislation it will not be thought that I do not regard the need to make proper provision for immigrants who are here as most important. That I do regard as important. But that will take a long time to accomplish, and so far as amending legislation is concerned that is something that we can deal with now. I hope we shall be told that the Government will introduce amending legislation without waiting until the mission has reported. I beg to move for Papers.

SOUNDPROOFING OF HOUSES NEAR HEATHROW AIRPORT
3.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable
74
friend the Minister of Aviation in another place about the Government's proposals for alleviating the disturbance from aircraft noise.
After reviewing the measures currently being taken, we have come to the conclusion that some further assistance should be offered to residents in the vicinity of Heathrow. The volume of traffic, particularly jet traffic, at Heathrow is far greater than at any other aerodrome in this country and is bound to increase. We have therefore decided to accept the principle of the recommendation, made in the Report of Sir Alan Wilson's Committee on Noise, about the soundproofing of rooms in private dwellings.
Grants of 50 per cent., subject to a maximum of £100, of the cost of soundproofing of up to three rooms will be made available to householders in a defined area around Heathrow for work carried out with prior approval and to an approved design. These grants will be payable in respect of soundproofing of existing private dwellings and those completed by January 1, 1966 and confined to owners or residents in the defined area on that date. The work must be completed by December 31, 1970, when the scheme will come to an end.
The area will comprise Staines and Stanwell wards, in Staines Urban District; Langley ward, in the Borough of Slough; the parishes of Horton, Datchet and Wraysbury and part of the parish of Iver in Eton Rural District; East Bedfont, Feltham North, Hounslow West, Hounslow Central, Hounslow South, Hounslow Heath, Cranford, Heston West, Heston East, Spring Grove and Isleworth South wards, in the London Borough of Hounslow; and South Ward and part of Hayes Ward, in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The area will be subject to review in the light of any changes in ward or parish boundaries before January 1, 1966.
The Government consider that the cost of these grants should fall on those whose activities cause the disturbance, or those who benefit from such activities. We intend, therefore, to introduce an Amendment to the Airports Authority Bill at present before Parliament to enable these grants to be paid by the British Airports Authority under a detailed scheme which

75
will be published by Statutory Instrument. It will be for the Authority to determine whether, and if so how, their revenues need to be increased to meet the cost of these grants. Local authorities around Heathrow will be asked to help the Airports Authority in administering the scheme.
The Government accept the view of the Wilson Committee that the amount of aircraft noise around Heathrow is unique in this country, and that a similar arrangement for the payment of grants in respect of the soundproofing of private dwellings is not required in the vicinity of any other airport. Since the introduction of the proposed Amendment to the Airports Authority Bill will represent a major change in its content, the Government have felt it proper that this should be done in Committee rather than on Report. They therefore propose to discharge the Order for the reception of the Report on Thursday, March 18, and to recommit the Bill for the same day.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are all your Lordships, for repeating this Statement. We shall clearly have an early chance of discussing the substance of it when the Airports Authority Bill is recommitted, so I do not propose to go into that. But at first sight, although I am sure these proposals will be welcomed by the residents in the area, it seems to me that they are going to lay a fairly heavy financial burden on the proposed Airports Authority. It would therefore be helpful if the noble Lord could give the House some indication of the number of houses likely to be involved in this measure.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to give the number of houses, although I have an estimate of the cost. When the number of houses is available, I will give it to the noble Earl later, if he wishes, or on the Committee stage. But, assuming that 40 per cent. of those eligible obtain grants, the cost would be £2½, million, which, amortised over 20 years, would cost the Airports Authority £220,000 per annum. Increased charges on the airlines for night jet operations at Heathrow could be considered by the Authority if they seemed necessary. I understand that this may also enable the Authority to
76
increase the amount of business they get, and in fact this is reckoned to be good business.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this approach by Her Majesty's Government will be welcomed by those responsible for operations, since they have always been fearful that greater restrictions would be put upon aircraft and their pilots as regards the use of full power or change of direction soon after take-off; and that this is a far wiser and safer way of approaching this problem?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, who of course knows a great deal about this subject from the airline operational point of view. I might perhaps add, for the convenience of the House, that I have acquired a map which shows the boundaries. This will be placed in the Library. It may also be of interest to the House, or to those who are familiar with the Wilson Report, to know that this map covers the whole of what is called the 55 N.N.I. line—the Noise Number Index.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, while welcoming this statement, may I put one point to the Minister? I do not expect an answer now, but perhaps he will give it on Committee stage of the Airports Authority Bill. There should be safeguards against the unnecessary application for grants for houses just because they happen to be situated in these parishes or wards. I have a friend who lives less than half a mile from London Airport. I have stayed with him. He gets little noise, if any at all, because in relation to the main runways his position is such that aircraft do not affect him. He is included in one of these parishes which the Minister has mentioned. Surely the question should be the position of a house in relation to the runways and flight plans, and not whether it happens to be within a certain radius of Heathrow?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, because his comment enables me to make a further point. The safeguard is, of course, that the householder will undoubtedly have to pay out of his own pocket part of the cost for this work. I think he is unlikely to do so, merely for the sake of getting a grant of £100 if the noise does not unduly bother him.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: There is such a thing as "Keeping up with the Joneses".
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, if the whole of this 50 per cent. grant is to be borne by the aircraft users, why is the other 50 per cent. to be borne by the householder? Why not by Her Majesty's Treasury?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should have thought that Her Majesty's Treasury were the last people who should bear the cost. This seems to me to be a suitable mixture of rough justice and incentive.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask whether this proposal includes the insulation of the bedrooms and the living room, because the housewife may be subjected to this nuisance all day?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lady that it applies up to a total of three rooms in the house.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there will be a recording of the noise level in each house—that is to say, the number of decibels in each case—before it is agreed to insulate?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Earl looks at the Wilson Report and also studies my Statement, and particularly if he looks at the map, he will see that that is not so.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, just for simplification, may I ask whether it would be more convenient to take the Amendments already down for Report stage of the Airports Authority Bill during the Recommittal of the Bill, or would the Government propose to leave the Amendments in which I am interested for Report? I do not mind.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should have thought it would be better to leave the noble Lord's Amendments to the Report stage. That would seem to be the correct procedure, rather than to go back over them.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how it is proposed to soundproof these houses? Is it by means of cladding materials along the
78
walls of the house, or by means of double windows with a cushion of air, in which case presumably they will then need fresh air from time to time in the house; or will air-conditioning be provided? Could the noble Lord elaborate a little as to how the soundproofing will be done within the maximum of 50 per cent. grant or £100 per house?
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps we have had enough discussion on this. The noble Lord perhaps knows more about sound than I do.

PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to have to begin what I have to say on a controversial note; I hoped that I should not have to do this. But I must rebut the most uncalled for accusation made against my noble friend, Lord Rea, by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. He accused by noble friend in his comment yesterday of making a Party point, or of trying to score a Party point. Lord Rea, in his comment yesterday, was merely stating an obvious fact: namely, that if this spate of illegal entries, amounting to some 10,000, had indeed taken place, much of the flood must have been pouring in before the General Election when the previous Government were in power, a Government of which Lord Dilhorne was a leading member. Yet that flood was apparently neither detected nor corrected at that time. My noble friend Lord Rea did not say half as much as I have done now, but simply pointed out an obvious fact.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lady would give way to me, may I say that in what she is now saying she is obviously reiterating a Party political point, otherwise there would be no point in mentioning it.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: I am correcting what has been called a Party political point, and stating an obvious fact which no one here could controvert. I am not a member of the Government, I am not even a Back-Bench member of the Government. I am

79
a Liberal. It is not to my advantage that noble Lords opposite or noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench should have allowed this flood of immigrants to pour in. I am simply stating what has quite obviously happened.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Would the noble Lady give way for a moment?
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: No, I am not going to give way again. I have made my point.
May I add that this question of immigrants and the whole matter of racial harmony, or racial disharmony, which underlies it should on no account be made a Party issue. To attempt to exploit it for Party political advantage, to use it as a means for gaining votes or gaining seats and thereby to fan the flames of racial discord, is, to my mind, a political crime. Therefore I most warmly welcome the action taken a week or two ago by a group of Members belonging to all three Parties in another place to lift this issue right out of the Party arena. I think that effort was successful; I welcome it, and am grateful for it.
This is a national issue if ever there was one, an issue which lies at the very root of our nation's well-being and of our relations with our Commonwealth. But although it is not a Party issue, it is certainly an issue on which there are two distinct and sharply differing attitudes. One attitude is well illustrated in the terms of the Motion by Lord Dilhorne, and I am sorry to say that it was also illustrated by the speech which followed. I thought that it might be mitigated by that speech. It was not controversial; I am not accusing it of being so. Control is now universally accepted as a disagreeable necessity by all Parties, including, of course, the Liberal Party. I am not saying that it was controversial, but it illustrated an attitude—because it was entirely negative and restrictive, both in its scope and in its emphasis. It dealt solely with how to keep immigrants out.
I remember my father once saying to me (and he rarely generalised about politics) that the only way to achieve anything in politics was by having one essential quality, the affirmative mind, the mind which says "Do" and not
80
the mind which says "Don't". I always think that if only the Ten Commandments could have been written in the affirmative instead of in the negative, if they had all begun, "Thou shalt" and not "Thou shalt not", we should all be very much better men and women than we are now. As it is, as an American once said to me, "They do not really stop you doing things, but they just put ideas into your head".
The contrasting attitude is what I hope and believe to be the attitude of the Government, an attitude which is positive, affirmative and constructive, of welcoming amongst us all those of our fellow-citizens in the Commonwealth whom we can absorb (by which I mean whom we can house and for whom we can find employment) and in determining to create such social conditions in this country that they can live in peace and harmony with their fellow citizens here. If that is the attitude of the Government, and I believe it is, it is one which we on the Liberal Benches wholeheartedly endorse and share.
I should like to say how much we welcomed the outline—the first outline, for we have not had much in the way of details yet—of the constructive measures which the Government are proposing to this end. We welcome, in particular, the plan to entrust to one Minister (I think he is the honourable Member for West Bromwich) the task of co-ordinating the work of all the various Ministries—and their name is legion: Housing, Health, Education, Labour and the local authorities; not forgetting the voluntary societies, who are all at this moment dealing with the problem of immigration from different angles. We hope that he will be given the support of a senior civil servant and that he will be given an office and an adequate staff to help him carry out his most urgent, complicated and responsible task.
There is another urgent priority which I should like to see the Government tackle. It is not my idea. It is the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. He will correct me if I get it wrong, but at least I am saying what I want, and I think that is what he suggested. The idea is that a "crash" housing programme should be undertaken, not by the local authorities, but by the Government (it is beyond the resources of the local authorities) in those towns which are most

81
affected by the entry of immigrants and where there is a desperate housing shortage. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, pointed out, the housing shortage and the resulting overcrowding is—and here I quote the noble Lord's words—"the main stimulant of racial animosity". Of course, it is inevitable that overcrowded or homeless British people should resent the competition of immigrants for the small housing space available. The immigrants themselves may be the first and worst victims of this overcrowding, but, as Lord Brockway said, they are inevitably the scapegoats. I would ask the Government to consider this question.
Again, in regard to education there is the problem of the influx of immigrant children into our schools, a problem which is presenting great difficulties to teachers and causing some criticism among parents. Could this not be solved by spreading the load, by a wider distribution of children among schools, which could easily be made if transport were available, such as buses? It is the concentration in certain schools which is causing trouble.
May I say a word about the problem of integration? I agree, for once, with the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it is a very overworked word, but I do not know what other word to substitute for it. A fortnight ago I happened to hear a most interesting programme on the B.B.C.—(I think it was in "Panorama"). It illustrated and described the way in which the Dutch are tackling this problem. By an odd coincidence there was a very interesting article last Friday in the Economist on the same theme, and perhaps some of your Lordships here read it. The Dutch, with a population of 12 million, have roughly 300,000 immigrants from Asia in their country. Taking our relative populations into account, this is equivalent to 1¼ million here. Let me reassure your Lordships that the sum was not done by myself; it was done by the Economist. About one-tenth of these 300,000 are Dutchmen. They are Dutchmen who have lived all their lives abroad in Indonesia, and they of course present no racial problem at all. All the rest have Asiatic blood and Asiatic colouring, but the Dutch Government, undaunted by this 300,000, are just about to invite
82
another 100,000—this time West Indians from Surinam.
There is, of course, a great labour shortage in Holland. How do they deal with them? All the passages of immigrants are paid by loan by the Government—a loan which they need not repay; it is a matter of personal conscience. When they arrive in Holland the immigrants are immediately met by trained social workers who take them first to specially rented hotels and boarding houses. Each one of them is then given £75 by the Government to buy a complete wardrobe, a complete new outfit from top coat to underwear, and they go out shopping on the very first day of their arrival. The welfare workers teach them how to shop, how to cook, how to housekeep—the Dutch way of life. Then after a short interval they settle the immigrants in their new homes.
Now this is, to my mind, the most remarkable thing about the scheme, and it is certainly one we could not copy. How are these new homes provided? In Holland there is an acute housing shortage, so acute that many young married couples are obliged to live, as they do here, for the first two or three years of their married life with their inlaws—a most inconvenient arrangement for both parties. In spite of this stringency, the Dutch allocate 5 per cent. of their new houses to their immigrants, and these houses are widely dispersed and spread over a big area. The result, says the Economist, is true integration and not ghettoes. I may add that all immigrants receive full Dutch citizenship on arrival.
If I am not wearying your Lordships, may I quote just two or three sentences from a dialogue with one or two of these immigrants? An Indonesian woman is asked:
"Have you come across any people who do not like you, simply because you are coloured?"
"No."
"Nobody at all?"
"No, nobody at all."
"And you make friends round here?"
"Yes, I make friends with everyone."
Then followed a description of the kindness she has received from Dutch families. The narrator added of the child immigrants that though, of course, a visitor would recognise them by the

83
colour of their skin, they themselves "appear to be colour blind". My Lords, this is what I think we should all aim at becoming; but as the noble Viscount, Lord Dithorne, has said, it will take a very long time.
The narrator added that people had come from all over the world to watch these Dutch methods in integration, and in dealing with their colour problem, but that so far as he knew no one, no official delegation, had yet come from this country. May I suggest to the Government that it might possibly be worth their while to send over, not perhaps an official delegation, but two or three trained observers just to study the Dutch methods and to report home? Please do not think, my Lords, that I am suggesting for one moment that we can exactly copy this Dutch pattern. There would be fierce resentment here if we attempted, for instance, to allocate 5 per cent. of new houses to immigrants. But I believe that there is something we might learn from them in our human attitudes, and I myself think that human attitudes are far more important and far more vital even than legislation.
May I say, talking of human attitudes, that I feel we ought to remember that we owe a debt of gratitude to these immigrants who to-day are making a most valuable contribution to our economy and to our prosperity, by rendering essential services in our hospitals, in our transport system and in many other capacities? So far as those holding "A" and "B" vouchers are concerned—I mean the "A"s for whom places are waiting, and the "B"s who are bringing us special skills, like those of doctors—they are an unmitigated benefit to this country.
I see that there are 3,000 immigrant doctors now employed by the National Health Service, and that as long ago as 1962 (I do not have any more recent figures) there were as many as close on 11,000 student nurses and pupils. Do let us have the grace to recognise that we need these people's help, and that we welcome it, and that we are grateful for it. Again, I think we should all welcome students who come here from afar—not only from the Commonwealth but from other countries. We should rejoice that young people want to come and be educated in this country, and we hope that they may take back with
84
them, when they go home, some of our way of life. If they overstay their time limit, of course they should notify that fact to the authorities; but many of them may find employment here.
I often hear it alleged that thousands of these immigrants are unemployed; that they are proving a burden on the tax-payer and on the State. In fact, that is utterly untrue. With my own ears I heard the Home Secretary in another place give the percentage of unemployment in the immigration population. It was 2·5 per cent. I think your Lordships will agree with me that that is a very low rate indeed. Nor, as is frequently alleged, is there a higher rate of crime and disease among them. They are no more criminal and no more diseased than we are—which is perhaps not saying much.
One thing we shall all agree is that there are no first-class or second-class citizens here. Of that I am glad. In this connection may I say how I rejoice to hear that the Government will shortly introduce a Bill to outlaw discrimination in public places. It is very necessary. I do not know if any noble Lords noticed a case reported in the evening papers last night, of coloured people being refused admittance to a saloon bar. One went in, accompanied by an English clergyman, and they were both turned out. Despite public protest, that publican's licence has been renewed. In this country we cannot admit apartheid by the back doors of hotels and restaurants.
I should like to address one question to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which perhaps he will be good enough to answer when he replies. My question is about the anti-discrimination Bill. Why is religious discrimination omitted from its scope? It is in the Charter of Human Rights, of course. To allow a man's religion to debar him from a meal in a restaurant, touches a height of bigotry unequalled since Hitler's day. It may be that it has been left out because it has been deemed to be wholly unnecessary in this country. But perhaps the noble Lord will let me know.
There is one other legislative measure that I should like to see enacted (I think it has been suggested by two Members of another place, belonging to different Parties), and that is a legal appeals tribunal to which immigrants who have been either excluded or threatened with

85
deportation may appeal. We have heard of these colossal administrative blunders made in letting in illegal immigrants—blunders amounting to thousands. It may be that, conversely, blunders have been made in the opposite sense: that some people who ought legitimately to have been allowed in have been excluded. I would put in a plea for an appeals tribunal—such as exists, of course, in America; which, in turn, as we know, is the Mecca of all immigrants.
My Lords, we are all proud, I know, of being the founders and the leading member of a multiracial Commonwealth. This is our proudest boast. We glory in it. To-day, we here in England are becoming a multiracial society. We have to face that fact, whether we like it or not. I realise, of course, that it will involve some difficult and perhaps painful adjustments for some people. I also realise that it will present an affront—a very healthy affront—to some inborn and inbred prejudices. But we should not regret it. Because it gives us an opportunity of solving the great problem, of meeting the greatest challenge of our time—of this twentieth century in which we live. That challenge is: how to enable men and women of different races, creeds, colour, conventions and traditions to live together and to work together, side by side, in peace, harmony and mutual understanding. It is a world-wide challenge. It exists in every Continent—in Africa, in Asia, in the United States and, to a very minor degree, in this country. But I think we should resolve to meet it, and to meet it in such a way that this country may be a pathfinder—and perhaps, in the end, a pattern—of racial tolerance, of fairness and of human understanding to the rest of the world.
4.24 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, has addressed your Lordships' House. We had the privilege of hearing first from her when she made a most moving contribution to the tributes to the late Sir Winston Churchill. But, in effect, so far as controversial subjects are concerned (if this subject is going to continue to be controversial), this is her maiden speech, and I know it will be your Lordships' wish that I should express our congratulations and our pleasure, both at what we have heard and at the prospect of
86
many more contributions of this kind on different subjects.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in introducing the debate—and we on the Government side are extremely grateful to him for giving us this opportunity—said he did not wish to arouse controversy or to engender heat. It seemed to me, in the first minute after he sat down, that he had at least failed, perhaps unwittingly and unwillingly, in that objective. I think that, on this particular question, we shall find that it is going to be very much more difficult to define what is a Party political point than to define the dependants of a voucher holder. But perhaps we shall work up a sort of case law as we go on and be able to come to a conclusion about what is Party political and what is not. It may well be that the interpretation will be that, if it is something you are blamed for and you do not like, then it is a Party political point. I think we should all try to bear in mind that, in dealing with this very great and important problem, what we are looking for are social solutions and not scapegoats; and try to make that our guiding light. I do not promise that everything I say will be completely without Party bias, or that I shall not here and there take up a defensive or aggressive attitude, but I am quite sure that, if I do, I shall be informed of that fact.
Both the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Baroness agreed that this whole subject should be lifted out of the arena of Party politics. Her Majesty's Government are firmly of opinion that the effective integration of immigrants into the community, and the future level of Commonwealth immigration, are matters of such vital concern to the whole nation that they must be lifted out of the realm of Party politics. We believe that a proper balance of the legitimate interests of the peoples, both of this country and of the Commonwealth, can be achieved only through knowledge and through an objective consideration of all the facts.
My Lords, I propose to give the facts, over a rather broader area than that to which the noble and learned Viscount devoted his attention, because I feel that in this matter the more we bend our heads down over figures, the less likely we are to see the situation as a whole and

87
what the future may hold. The noble Baroness put it in rather a different light when she suggested that the present approach had been entirely negative and restricted, and that the essential quality should be an affirmative approach and not a constantly negative one. Therefore, I propose to state the size of the problem as we see it; the extent of our powers under the 1962 Act and their effect on the inflow of immigrants; the results likely to be achieved by administrative action; and, finally, the steps which the Government are taking in the most important field of all—that of integration or co-ordination. You can call it what you will, but it means assimilating these Commonwealth immigrants in our midst into the community as a whole as first-class citizens.
To give some idea of the scope of the position that confronts us, last year our immigration officers supervised, including United Kingdom nationals, nearly 16 million arrivals at and departures from our ports; and that number is increasing by 10 to 12 per cent. every year. Two-and-a-half million aliens are admitted annually; and last year, of these, 42,584 came in with work permits and were admitted for employment for a specified period. 19,211 aliens were accepted for permanent residence last year. Nearly half of them were people who had completed four years in approved employment, and most of the remainder were the husbands, wives or dependants of British subjects or resident aliens. We now have upwards of 400,000 aliens in permanent residence—exclusive, of course, of the many citizens of the Irish Republic who come to work and even set up home here.
With few exceptions aliens are admitted only conditionally. We control the length of their stay; we decide whether they can take employment, and, if so, the nature of the job. We require them to register their addresses and personal particulars, and to inform the police of any changes. We have power to refuse entry, and power to deport; and breach of conditions of entry is one of the grounds for deportation of aliens. It is true, as the noble and learned Viscount said, that few of these restrictions apply to Commonwealth citizens; and the noble and learned Viscount pressed for early legislation. But it seemed to me
88
that the suggestions he made were that all the restrictions which are now applied to aliens—and, indeed, many more not at present applied to them—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that really is not a correct representation of what I said. I never related this matter to aliens at all. I was dealing with the gaps, as I see it, in the 1962 Act; and it was with these that I was solely concerned in that part of my speech.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I quite accept that from the noble and learned Viscount. I will rephrase what I said. The kind of restrictions which he asked the Government to consider imposing on Commonwealth immigrants, where necessary by further legislation, were the kind of restrictions which are at present applied to aliens, and in some respects they would indeed be more severe.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With respect, I said nothing about reporting to the police, which is what aliens have to do and Commonwealth citizens do not have to do. The noble Lord is not representing my speech correctly. I said that we ought to have machinery, whatever it might be, for seeing that conditions were complied with and for detecting any breaches. The noble Lord is not correctly representing my speech if he is trying to make out that the theme I was putting forward was that Commonwealth citizens should be treated in all respects as if they were aliens. I said nothing to support that conclusion.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the only objection the noble and learned Viscount is making is that I have made a comparison with aliens. In fact, it is the case that many of the restrictions which he suggested might be applied are the kind of restrictions we apply to aliens; and in some respects they would, in fact, go further. For example, the noble and learned Viscount suggested that we should impose conditions on the length of stay of voucher holders, and impose on wives and dependants similar conditions to those imposed on the man himself. Aliens who come here with employment vouchers, and aliens accepted here for permanent residence, without restriction, can afterwards bring their wives and families with them.
So far as Commonwealth immigrants are concerned, under the 1962 Act,

89
voucher holders, their wives and children under sixteen have a legal right to admission. Indeed, the wife and children under sixteen of any Commonwealth citizen resident here enjoy this right. Once they are here we have no powers to exercise control over their residence, employment, or length of stay, unless on landing, their admission is made subject to conditions. The only conditions we can impose under the 1962 Act are on people other than voucher holders or their dependants. They relate to length of stay and freedom to take employment, and until February 4 these powers were rarely applied.
Since then, however, under the arrangements announced by the Home Secretary, immigration officers have made fuller use of their powers, and during last month conditions were applied to the entry of at least 178 persons. That does not sound a very large number in the space of just over three weeks; but at this time of the year not many students and visitors (the only kind of persons to whom conditional entry is likely to be applied) are coming in. It is thought that over a full year we shall now be imposing conditions on the entry of some thousands of Commonwealth citizens in those very groups where the evasion of the conditions in taking place. The true comparison between the figures of last month and before lies in the fact, as I have pointed out, that since the Act came into force, on the average, conditions have been applied to the entry of fewer than twelve persons a month. So this is at least a tenfold increase and is likely to build up. Also we can, and do, refuse admission to intending immigrants, and last month 129 were refused admission.
Here, again, that was four times as many as were refused admission in February of last year when precisely the same Act and precisely the same conditions were being operated. So there is a considerable change.
It will be twelve months before we can judge with any certainty the effect on net entry of this stricter reégime, but, apart from the results accruing from the enforcement of conditions of entry, it is expected that many who might otherwise have been disposed to take a chance will not now run the risk of an expensive and fruitless journey. It is also probable that the carriers will exercise greater care in reviewing the entry qualifications of
90
intending immigrants, because in most cases they have to bear the cost of taking back home those who have been refused permission to land.
I now wish you to consider the figures for the net inflow of immigrants, that is, the difference between the total number admitted and the number who went home in any one year. But it is as well to take these figures with caution. Over a lengthy period, say five years, during which the flow has been relatively constant, the net balance should provide a fairly accurate guide to the rate at which people are settling here, but the available figures over our limited two-year period must be treated with some caution.
During 1963 the net inflow from the three older Commonwealth countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia) was 8,951. Last year it was 13,382—that is to say, excess of arrivals over departures. From all other Commonwealth countries and dependent territories the net inflow in 1963 was 57,049 and in 1964, 62,117. Taking the two years together that is an average of 60,000 a year, representing an increase of some 6 per cent. a year to the numbers already resident here. This 60,000 compares with a net increase of 136,400 in 1961 and an annual rate of 190,000 in the first six months of 1962.
A matter of the greatest significance in the last two years has been the change in the proportion of voucher-holders in the total net inflow. It indicates—and I think this is of considerable importance—that even if the issue of vouchers were completely stopped it would be by no means certain that the net inflow would be reduced below the present level, although obviously it would reduce the potential level. In 1963 the previous Government issued 41,440 vouchers, of which 30,125 were used. More than 50 per cent. of the vouchers issued were in the "C" or general category. Last year we issued, as the noble Viscount said, 20,824 vouchers, and of those only some 10 per cent. were in the "C" category. But of these only 14,705 vouchers—less than half the 1963 total—were used.
I think the important thing is the number used and not the number issued. This Government have issued no vouchers under Category "C"—the miscellaneous unskilled category. I hope that this will dispose, once and for all, of the allegation that we are admitting for employment large numbers of unskilled immigrants

91
who have no jobs to go to. Whereas the 1963 voucher-holders represented more than 45 per cent. of the total inflow of 66,000 from all the countries of the Commonwealth, voucher-holders in 1964 amounted to less than 19 per cent. of the total inflow. The difference is due to a much larger influx of dependants, most of whom came over after the breadwinner had established a home here. There are still large numbers of dependants, now overseas, who have the right to join Commonwealth citizens resident here, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to abrogate that legal right.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home told the Conservative Central Council on Saturday:
"The numbers coming in must be severely cut down".
But I would ask him, and still more those who declare that, come what may, all further immigration must be halted, "Are you prepared to dishonour, and are you demanding that we should dishonour, the pledge in the 1962 Act, and separate wives from their husbands and children from their parents?" The noble and learned Viscount put, as one of his demands, that we should institute a control over the total number of people who come here for permanent residence—not only voucher-holders, but dependants and everyone else.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt, but the noble Lord is creating a wrong impression. My noble and learned friend never suggested that they should be separated from families. I shall deal with the point when it comes up, but it is entirely misleading to suggest that my noble and learned friend said such a thing.
LORD STONHAM: Noble Lords opposite must consider the consequences of their proposals. I took down the noble and learned Viscount's words and he said: "We want legislation now, (1) to institute a control over the total number of people coming here for permanent settlement". There are still large numbers of dependants, now overseas, who have the right to join Commonwealth citizens resident here. I have already said—and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did not interrupt me when I said it—that even if we reduced the number of voucher-holders—to nothing, if you like
92
—it is still not certain that the net inflow of immigrants would be reduced, unless we abrogated the right of dependants to come here. If an arbitrary overall figure was imposed—unless, of course, it was a very high one, in which case it would have no effect—and if we do not abrogate that right, then it is possible that it would be absorbed and no additional people would come in.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord is misrepresenting my noble and learned friend. When he says that it would make no difference if no voucher-holders at all are allowed in, he is talking on the short term; in the long term it would not have that effect. What he is saying is quite untrue. I repeat that my noble and learned friend never suggested that it was possible to have an overall control which might mean separating families from the husband. If the noble Lord goes on making this suggestion, it is really disgraceful.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, what the noble and learned Viscount said—and I am sorry he is not here to speak for himself—will be recorded in Hansard and can be read by everyone, along with what I have said. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will appreciate that I am not deliberately misrepresenting his noble friend. I am honestly putting this point as it occurs to me. If the noble Lord is saying that they will not, and never would, abrogate this right; that they would never dream of separating wives from their husbands and children from their fathers, I am delighted to have that assurance, and the rest of the noble and learned Viscount's suggestions can be worked out after allowing for that.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves these figures, could he tell me, as a matter of interest—because he says that a large number of dependants have the right to come here—if any total has been made of that number? Is his statement based on any known figure or is the figure unknown?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, an estimate has been made, based on the best information we have available. No exact figure can be given, but it is the case that dependants are coming over even five years after the breadwinner has come here and they are still coming. As

93
the bulge of immigrants in 1961 and 1962 reached nearly a quarter of a million, there must be an equivalent number of dependants who will continue to come over for some time. And even if we reduced the voucher-holders to nothing, the inflow of dependants would still continue.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, where is the housing accommodation for all these people? The noble Lord can go on ad infinitum about all sorts of things, but can he tell me where we are going to house all these people?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps if I were allowed to go on with my speech without interruptions, I might come to that point much more quickly. This is an important subject and I think it is essential that we should get all the facts and put them in the right framework, and if it does not suit the particular cases which some noble Lords want to make, then I am sorry. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount has returned.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry not to have been able to hear more of the noble Lord's speech. I had a request for an urgent telephone call.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I understand, but I would say now to the noble and learned Viscount that, apart from abrogating the right of dependants to come here and join Commonwealth citizens resident here, there are only two ways of reducing immigration—one, to cut the voucher issue and the other, to reduce or eliminate the evasion of control. Thus, there is very limited scope for reduction, and anyone who deliberately ignores this fact and asks for drastic reduction is pandering to prejudice. These issues have to be carefully weighed, because wrong decisions could have far-reaching and possibly disastrous effects in the Commonwealth.
I should like to dispel another illusion. Last Friday, Mr. Thorneycroft suggested that we are letting in persons who are only distantly connected with those settled here. This is not so. Our interpretation of the term "dependant" has so far been exactly the same as that of the previous Government. We do not
94
admit "the cousins and the aunts," and it does not help for people to suggest this.
But in one sector there is no room for argument, and here we entirely agree with the noble Viscount—that is, our determination to exclude, if we can, those who try to circumvent the controls. Each year the net entry is larger than the total of those who are properly admitted for settlement, and this excess—mainly students and visitors who have stayed on—is the evasion figure. During the last two years, the total evasion figure for the three older Commonwealth countries was 16,538 and for all the new Commonwealth countries it was 10,255. This is the figure that is most often quoted. The last figure represents 8½ per cent. of the total net entry of people from the new Commonwealth countries during the last two years. It is a substantial and unacceptable figure. The figure for the old Commonwealth countries, although much higher, is generally believed to comprise people (mainly young people) who are over here on a working holiday.
But I must emphasise that we have to look at a whole year at least, because there is a marked seasonal ebb and flow. For example, in the first four months that this Government were in office, the evasion figures from new Commonwealth countries was minus 5,133—that is, more out than in. I am not claiming that this is due to better administration, because it would not be honest to do so. It is due to the fact that the peak entry periods are in the second quarter (holiday-makers) and the third quarter (students), whereas the last quarter of the year is the period of exodus, when people go home, perhaps because it is Christmas or because it is warmer elsewhere.
But whatever the reason, my right honourable friend is deeply concerned at the serious volume of evasion and has taken energetic measures to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, within his powers under the Act, the net inflow at the end of the year will be closer to the total number properly admitted. The Home Secretary, by instructing immigration officers
"to subject to the fullest scrutiny … the intention and bona fides of Commonwealth citizens seeking entry",
hopes to exclude a substantial proportion

95
of those who have gained entry hitherto by falsely claiming to be included in those categories entitled to entry under the Act. In this I feel sure he will have the active co-operation of the overseas Governments concerned, and I am glad to be able to express our appreciation of the ready co-operation that we have already had from the Commonwealth authorities concerned in trying to stamp out the use of forged passports.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, made a point about genuine passports, and asked: How can they be genuine if they give false information? They are genuine in the sense that they are properly issued by the Governments in the countries of origin, but in fact the holder of the passport has himself given false information, perhaps regarding the date of his birth, or even of his real identity. The noble and learned Viscount asked: How do immigration officers find this out? They are very experienced people, and certainly a number—I do not say how substantial a proportion—have been turned back. We have had men of 29 trying to pass themselves off as under 16. It has been a close shave, but not quite close enough in the circumstances.
I saw last week some of the measures that are being taken at London Airport, and I was most impressed by the ingenious steps which are taken to preclude the possibility of successful forgery and to detect it when it is attempted. For example, no one has yet succeeded in gaining admission on a forged voucher. I was even more impressed by the very high standard of care and supervision achieved by our immigration officers in discharging their arduous, exacting and at times saddening tasks. I am glad to be able to say that we are shortly sending experienced immigration officers to the main immigrant centres overseas, and we believe that they will be able to give great help to the overseas Governments in solving many of the present problems at the source.
These measures will reduce evasion far more than the noble and learned Viscount believes; but we cannot guarantee that they will end it. It is one thing to impose conditions of entry, and another, under present powers, to enforce them. A week or two back I gave
96
him figures for the proportions of those who had complied with conditions, or had been compelled to comply with conditions, out of the admittedly small number on whom conditions had been imposed. Although it is not easy, we had a fair measure of success. But I assure the noble and learned Viscount that other measures to ensure that we invariably find people if they have offended against the conditions, and then set the machinery of the law into operation, would have to be very stringent indeed. Therefore we think that the system should be given a fair trial. But if it proves inadequate, then we shall have to ask Parliament for further powers.
My Lords, I have had to quote a lot of figures, but I hope they have served to convey an accurate picture of the present position, the scale and possible future trends of immigration, the scale of evasion, and the action which is being taken to deal with it. I should now like to deal with the broader issues which the noble and learned Viscount did not cover, and particularly the question of integration. I very much welcome what the noble Baroness had to say about the contribution which is being made by immigrants here. On the economic side, there is no question that the vast majority of these immigrants are an asset, and our lives would be very much harder if we did not have them. Forty per cent. of all the junior hospital medical staff are from the new Commonwealth countries; nearly 15 per cent. of all student nurses are from the Commonwealth, and more than half of them are in the four Metropolitan regions. Without their help some of our hospitals would have to close. We welcome many other Commonwealth citizens with qualifications and skills we badly need; and even those who are less skilled are making a valuable contribution. In transport, for example, London Transport would be disrupted, and bus services in our major cities would have to be severely cut down. Many industries would be drastically affected. We have to face the fact that the labour market is bare, and many firms throughout the country have come to rely in varying degrees on the help of our friends from overseas.
Perhaps of even greater importance is the effect of restrictions, which might be

97
considered unjustifiable, on the future of the Commonwealth. Last week in another place leave was asked to introduce a Bill which aimed at drastic reductions in further immigration. Its sponsor claimed that the majority of British people supported his plea,
"… not because they hate other races, but because they love their own country and they want to leave the heritage to their children …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 707 (No. 68), col. 1134, March 2, 1965.]
But, as the noble Baroness said, a great part of the heritage that we want to leave to our children is the Commonwealth. We believe that, despite all the frustrations, disappointments and difficulties, its potential contribution to the peace and well-being of the world cannot be overestimated.
Her Majesty's Government also believe that another priceless part of our heritage is our outstanding and leading contribution to human institutions, whether in law or democratic tradition, and it may well be as important for Britain to regain world leadership in this field as to create better missiles or build up a bigger gold reserve. Indeed, many people believe that the most important asset we could create would be a bank of goodwill among the people of all the countries of the Commonwealth, striving towards the settlement of 20th century problems within the framework of democracy. Towards this end, therefore, we are determined to proceed in actively promoting the integration of Commonwealth immigrants into the British community, and in this we are very happy to be assured of the whole-hearted co-operation of the Opposition.
Your Lordships may have seen a remarkable series of articles which was published in The Times in January under the title "The Dark Million". They referred to an article published ten years ago pointing out that no one was responsible for any national policy directed towards assimilating immigrants into the life of the community where they lived. They urged the appointment of a senior official to co-ordinate the work being done in this field, and added:
"In those ten wasted years complacency has persisted"
and
"because responsibility has been largely shelved on to local authorities, remedies have been on a local scale."
It is the case, unfortunately, that the
98
previous Government allowed the situation to get out of hand by deliberate non-planning. They hoped, vainly as it now proves, that the problems created by the influx of hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens would solve themselves. That is why we are in our present position which, unhappily, some people exploit for political ends. That is why the Government are firmly of opinion that this subject should be lifted out of the realm of Party politics; and whilst we shall always welcome help and constructive criticism from the Opposition, we would ask them to remember those ten wasted years.
The noble Viscount referred to, and welcomed, the Prime Minister's Statement, which we regard as the beginning of a truly national policy in this matter. The Prime Minister emphasised the need for co-ordination of effort, and the way in which the Government have recognised this is by appointing my honourable friend Mr. Foley, with special responsibility for this question. He will visit the areas with immigrant problems and discuss with local authorities the help they need in solving them, and he will liaise with the Government Departments concerned.
But I think the best way of expressing the Government's intention is to use the Prime Minister's own words in a reply he gave yesterday. He said
"I want to make it quite clear that what we are proposing in respect of integration is not simply an inquiry. It is the co-ordination of effective executive Government action with, and through, local authorities and voluntary bodies to see that much speedier action is taken on integration, in the widest sense of the word, in terms of housing, health, education, and everything that needs to be done to minimise the possible social disturbance arising from this problem, and from the exploitation of the problem by people who ought to know better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 708 (No. 73), col. 250, March 9, 1965.]
That expresses the Government's intention, and that is why we are sending a high-level mission to Commonwealth Governments to see what new measures can be adopted, and why also we are bringing in, as soon as Parliamentary time will allow, a programme to deal with racial discrimination and to end the evil of incitement to racial hatred.
The noble Baroness raised a question about religious discrimination being left out of the Bill. I have, of course, taken

99
part in consultations on this subject, but I have not yet seen a draft of the Bill, and therefore I cannot give any answer on that point. I do not even know whether a draft of the Bill exists. Meanwhile, we are developing courses of action in those fields where the need is greatest. The other day I read:
"In the older parts of our towns, not each floor, but each room, is tenanted by a family; sometimes the dormitory of several occupants thrown together in the chance scramble for a night's lodging. Each swelling the gains of some middleman whose heart is seared by the recollection of his own poverty, and who learns to grind as he was once ground by others."
That was not, as your Lordships might suppose, a description of living conditions to-day in Paddington. It is taken from a book The Rookeries of London, published in 1850. It describes the conditions endured by immigrants, not from overseas, but from our own countryside, dragged into the towns by the Industrial Revolution. The book even mentions Notting Hill as one of the worst affected areas. The parallel is almost exact, but there is one vital difference. In 1850 there were practically no public services. In 1965 we have local authority and Government services, and where there is the will there is the power to remove this misery from our midst.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is firmly of opinion that the greatest need is for the provision of dwellings to let at inexpensive rents, and that a greater use of industrialised methods in house-building will help towards a speedier solution. Coloured immigrants are not so heavily concentrated as is sometimes alleged. Only ten boroughs in the whole country have more than one in every 25 of the population. Unfortunately, however, as they usually lack the residential qualifications necessary for consideration for local authority housing, they are compelled to look to the lower-priced end of the private sector, and they thus tend to collect in the decaying parts of our cities.
Powers have already been taken to deal with the worst conditions in multi-occupied property and to improve these dwellings where there has been a lack of facilities. These powers, which were strengthened by the 1964 Housing Act, are directed solely towards the improvement
100
of bad housing conditions, and they take no account, of course, of the country of origin of the occupant. I am glad to say that these powers have had a considerable impact on the immigrants' position.
The noble Baroness referred to the position in the schools. Considerable attention has already been given to that problem, particularly in those schools where more than 30 per cent. of the children are immigrants. In some areas transfers have been made and others are already being arranged, not, of course, because there is any racial problem with the children, but because language difficulties place too great a burden on the teaching staffs. There are also additional English classes, and extra teachers are being authorised wherever necessary. In some areas we find that there is a need for language classes for adults, and local education authorities have, I understand, been willing to provide such classes on demand, and any unsatisfied demand should be made known to the authority concerned.
In the field of health, the special health needs of immigrants have been the subject of particular care. Education in helping them to cope with strange climates, foods and social conditions have been provided through the health and welfare services, and especially by health visitors and social workers in co-operation with local authority organisations.
On December 1 last year, when we debated this subject, I mentioned the measures which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health had in mind for application at the port of entry. These are now in operation. It has always been the case that voucher holders are medically examined. We have no power to examine entitled dependants. Now all are given leaflets printed in six languages, including three Asian tongues, conveying advice regarding registration with a G.P. In addition, doctors at ports are now conveying any necessary medical information to medical officers of health for the area in which the immigrant intends to live. Since February 12, at London Airport any person examined by the doctors who was considered to be suspect has had a chest X-ray on the spot. To date, out of some 900 medical examinations, there were in the first two weeks 54

101
such X-ray examinations, which compares with 9 in the whole of last year. Three persons, unfortunately, were found to be suffering from active T.B. and had to be refused admission.
All these problems are being intensively considered, and others will be dealt with as they arise. But there is, as the noble Lady has said, a limit to what Governments can do, and there is an urgent need for the setting up of voluntary societies to foster goodwill, understanding and the means of practical help where it is needed. The few in being have achieved remarkable results, and cities such as Birmingham, where they have had a liaison officer for the last twelve years, have excellent records in this respect. Housing is the most vital part of the solution of the social problems created by immigrants. If hostels could be provided by employers or housing associations for immigrants on their first arrival, it would be a great help. Housing associations to provide housing accommodation for families, either by reconditioning or by building, would also help; and it would avoid the difficulty local authorities feel in giving priority to immigrants.
My Lords, this is but the most recent of many a major influx of immigrants into our country. At the turn of the century it was the Jews and the Poles. The same things were said of them as are now said of the dark million; of their housing, their habits—even their morals. The talk arises from the same basic cause, a feeling of insecurity and perhaps even fear. The big difference is that the faces of the Victorian immigrants were white. It requires a much greater effort to secure acceptance of to-day's immigrants, because some of them, however good citizens they may be, will want to some extent to lead a different sort of social, cultural, and religious life. It would be realistic to accept this and to concentrate on the task of ensuring that all our citizens, irrespective of race or colour, enjoy equal rights.
The Government do not minimise the difficulties. In fact, we regard the present problem as one of the greatest social challenges that we face. We are determined that the number of new immigrants shall be restricted to levels which can properly be assimilated. We are
102
still more determined to integrate into the community those who are already with us, and to ensure that any danger that they may be treated as second-class citizens is removed. We do not forget that we fostered the concept of the Commonwealth, as distinct from the concept of Empire, and we are determined to create conditions in which these new citizens will become an asset, not only at home, but in our efforts abroad to promote the well-being of the peoples of the Commonwealth and the peace of the world.
5.12 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address your Lordships' House and I assure your Lordships that I do so with trepidation and humility. I shall endeavour to be brief and also to be uncontroversial, from a Party political point of view. For the last nine and a half years I had the honour to represent a South London constituency in another place, and I watched with great concern the arrival and the flow of immigrants which rose from a trickle to a flood. Perhaps I shall not be thought to be controversial if I explain the context in which I use the word "flood". I am not referring to the overall figures: I am referring to the vast concentration of immigrants who arrive in any one area; because, so far as the people living in any particular area are concerned, what affects them is the number who arrive locally, not the overall figure.
I watched this problem of integrating immigrants come to be almost an unsolved problem, owing to the lack of distribution of the arriving immigrants in the area. It is a new problem, a problem which I would say has not been seriously considered by the residents in this country as a whole, unless they happen to be in intimate contact with the immigrants. Travelling around the country, making political speeches here and there, one finds that in an area where there is an immigrant problem one is flooded with questions, while in another area where the immigrant problem does not arise, the matter is probably not mentioned at all during a meeting. It is for this reason that I very much welcome the Government measures which were announced yesterday in both Houses of Parliament. They obviously entail a vastly intensified form

103
of inquiry, and I can only hope that they will also form the prelude to effective action in the near future.
I should like to speak of this problem from a slightly different slant—from the point of view of how I saw the problem in South London; indeed, I might say the problem as seen from the receiving end. As the noble Lady said earlier on, it is a vast human problem. It is also a vast administrative problem, and one which, if not tackled in the very near future, will become out of hand. I believe that we have one great advantage in this country over various other countries, that there is no appreciable racial prejudice here. There is no objection to a man simply on account of the colour of his skin; there is no colour bar. But, my Lords, in certain areas of the country there is a very definite culture bar.
In the part of London of which I am speaking there are three main categories of immigrants. First of all, there are the Irish—and I mention the Irish because your Lordships will remember that in 1962 there was interminable controversy about how they were going to be dealt with, and whether we could assimilate them. As a matter of fact, there is a vast population of Irish in South London, and they present no problem whatsoever. Occasionally there will be individual disgruntlement because an Irish family on the housing list is granted a council house, whereas a longer-resident family, perhaps, has not been so granted. But this represents only a very small bit of individual resentment.
As well as the Irish there are the coloured immigrants, who fall into two categories. Basically, there are the professional and skilled coloured immigrant and the unskilled or semi-skilled manual labourer. So far as the skilled and professional coloured immigrants are concerned, again there is no problem whatsoever. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned this aspect during the course of his speech. Lawyers, solicitors, doctors, hospital sisters and nurses who have arrived are greatly respected; and, indeed, as regards the hospital staff, are greatly beloved within the area. I personally served on the management committee of a large hospital group for several years, and I well remember that at times we had up to 30 per cent. of coloured nurses on the hospital nursing
104
staff, and one can say without exaggeration that had those nurses been withdrawn, that hospital would have collapsed administratively.
There are a great many hospitals in South London, and many people have contacts with these nurses, either as patients themselves, or because their friends or relatives are patients; or perhaps they have contact with a hospital league of friends, or go to hospitals on open days. In some way or other, most people in the locality are conscious of the way the hospitals are run, and they are deeply grateful to our Commonwealth friends who have arrived to help them run their own hospital service in the country.
There is one last point that I would make about these professional and skilled classes; they are wholly dispersed throughout the whole community. When these professional people arrive there is no question in their mind of trying to join a group or colony. They arrive, and they disperse. In a social sense, they disappear into the population, and emerge, a little later on, as integrated members of the community. One meets them socially, at friends' houses and at social gatherings; and one meets their children at children's parties at Christmas time and so on. They have arrived, and they have integrated themselves within the community. They are very welcome and they present no problem whatsoever.
I now come to the third category, who are, I believe, a problem and with whom we shall have to deal very carefully. These are the unskilled or semi-skilled workers. Whether or not they form a majority of the immigrants is extremely hard to say, at any rate for someone who has not access to Government figures. At least one can say this; they appear to form the majority of the immigrants because they congregate. This is the one outstanding factor that makes their integration very difficult; instead of dispersing they deliberately congregate, not only in an area, but in a given street or block of houses. I remember in 1962 getting the bulk of my information about London as a whole—I was not able to go round—from taxi drivers. I respectfully suggest to Her Majesty's Government that a great source of information is the London taxi driver—taxi drivers who ply their hire from the great termini in the centre, and, not to be forgotten, the taxi drivers who

105
ply their hire from London Airport. They are the people in this country who can tell you precisely the pattern and habits of the immigrants. Not only that; they can tell you where various racial communities are to be found.
In the area of which I am speaking, the southern part of London, there was a pretty normal pattern of procedure of these particular people. They would arrive; they would buy up or rent rather dilapidated Victorian houses which, of course, they were able to get fairly cheaply—houses, which in the modern jargon, are known, I think, as "twilight houses"; that is to say, they were not really worth restoring fully, nor yet are they scheduled for demolition. And this community normally settled in that type of house. They got jobs and then in due course sent for their dependants. Other noble Lords have described at length how any one man may have a vast amount of dependants. The point is this: from the administrative point of view, within the locality, the dependants would often arrive all together in a crowd and settle in the locality. This is because their movements are dependent on the movements of liners or chartered flights coming to London Airport. There is suddenly this situation of a vast crowd of dependants arriving in a block of streets or one street alone, and immediately this community becomes a community apart. It probably has its own clubs. Some enterprising people may even set up their own restaurants and eating places, and it becomes a racial community apart from the neighbours. We cannot be surprised.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, quoted a debate which took place recently in another place. I was very interested in reading this debate—perhaps your Lordships were, too—to read the figures of the comparative standards of living between the countries of origin of the immigrants and our own country. The Member concerned was speaking of India and Pakistan. The average annual income per worker in India and Pakistan is between £19 and £24. Compare that with the average annual income in the United Kingdom, of £405. It is not surprising that the standards of living as between ourselves and the immigrants are vastly different. And it is here, in
106
my own experience, that the friction arises and it is here that vital action must be taken before it becomes worse. After all, the lives of these people are ruled with regard to economy rather than with regard to comfort or gracious living.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, one of the first considerations of economy is the density at which the immigrants live, and one finds in these community houses here and now, to-day, that there may be as many as six or seven people living in one room simply and solely for reasons of economy. They do not, because of their origin, have a very great pride of property, nor a sense of great tidiness. The lack of pride of property is not surprising because very often the houses are community owned; these people cannot point and say, "That is my house", as it is owned by five or six families. This has a certain obvious result. First of all, they do not bother to clip the hedge, and it begins to get shabby. The fence gets broken, and they do not bother to mend it. Most of the residents of that area, no doubt, bring out their dustbins on Thursday afternoon, or whenever the municipal authorities call, and when they have been emptied take them back and put them tidily away. These people do not do so. Often they develop the habit of leaving the dustbin outside the front door throughout the week. And around it you find an accumulation of bits of paper, broken milk bottles, and cigarette cartons.
My Lords, it may seem that I am mentioning trivial points, but these are not trivial to the residents of the district. I am quite certain that anyone who has been a Member of Parliament in an area such as this will have had precisely the same experience I have had, and received constant complaints from other residents in the area. The commonest thing in the world is for a man to come to you and say, "I have nothing against these people because of the colour of their skins; but I have got it against them because they are turning this area into a slum. When I bought my house in 1920, this was a decent area; this was a good street. Look at it now! It is being turned into a slum". After all, this is a very considerable cause of bitterness to a man who may have sunk his life savings into buying a house for himself and his family. It arises from misunderstanding; but it

107
is a misunderstanding that we must put right.
It is all very well to criticise some of the actions that have happened. The question is: what can we do to put them right? Luckily, that is primarily a problem for the Government, but of course it affects all of us in this country; and any action that will be taken must, of necessity, come from a combination of central and local government. I do not want to be controversial, but there has been a considerable amount of discussion as to whether or not any limit could be put on the dependants. For myself, I cannot quite see why when a man applies for a work permit, he should not enter in that work permit the number of dependants that he eventually wants to bring to this country. It is obvious that he will include his wife and children, and I am not suggesting that the Government should be hard on these people. And, at a later date, the man's mother-in-law (shall I say) becomes a widow, and he wants to bring her. I would suggest that an immediate permit be given to this lady. But what I am suggesting is that a sufficient check be put on the number of immigrants who can be expected to arrive, so that the Government will have some idea of the problem on their hands in future years. I should have thought they might go a step further and include the total, the worker and his proposed dependants, within their overall global figure.
The next problem that I see—and this is a tremendous administrative problem within the country—is dispersion within an area. That is why I dwelt upon the way in which these immigrants arrive and allow an area rather to deteriorate. I do not know whether it would be possible, but of course the ideal from the local authority point of view would be to limit the percentage number of houses in any one street that could be occupied by immigrants. If we do not do something like this, I cannot see what the eventual answer to this problem is going to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned the powers available to the local authorities. Indeed, the local authorities have powers both to prevent overcrowding and to prevent dilapidation of property. These powers were given to
108
them under the various Housing Acts, I think notably the 1964 Housing Act, the last one which was passed. The great trouble I found in discussing these matters with local authorities was that they were not willing to take the powers given to them under the 1964 Housing Act, for the simple reason that, as they have said, "If you take a house with 20 people in it which we consider should have a density of 10 people, we then have to remove the surplus 10 people, but we have nowhere to put them".
This is a practical difficulty which exists to-day. But I feel that local authorities might be encouraged to take preventive action. They could be encouraged to have settled localities. These are not vast areas where this is going on. If they could be encouraged to go there and get to know more about the future dependants of the immigrants who have already arrived, to have a list of the future dependants of any one immigrant who are proposing to join him at a later date, then surely the local authorities might be able to plan forward a little more accurately than they can do to-day.
The last point I would make is one which I think has already been made—namely, about children in schools. I am sure it is vital, not only in the interests of the immigrants themselves but in the particular interests of our own schools, that there should be a percentage limit of immigrant children which could be absorbed at any one time into any given school. I say that this is just as much in the interests of the immigrants as it is of our own people. Furthermore, if you limit the number of children in any given school, this might have the additional effect of influencing the parents to a greater degree of dispersion in regard to their housing problem.
I should like to conclude by saying a word about the attitude of the immigrants themselves. I have found myself (and I am sure many of your Lordships feel the same), in making a speech of this nature, profoundly inhibited lest I say something which would give offence to the immigrants who are already settled in this country. But in talking to immigrants I have found that they are, if anything, more conscious of the difficulties that exist than are we ourselves. We have to remember that they want most

109
passionately to become integrated; they want most passionately to become true members of our own society. Therefore, they, above all others, will welcome any measures which make them more acceptable to our community here in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government will remember that always when they are framing new laws or new measures to deal with this problem. I feel that we, the country and the Government are faced with an extremely difficult problem. Many suggestions have been made. I do not doubt that many more will he made. But my own view of this problem, from what I have seen of it in practice, is that there is only one certainty—namely, that to do nothing would be disastrous, for then the problem would become insoluble.
5.35 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, the first thing I want to do is to congratulate the noble Lord on a most competent, knowledgeable and inspiring speech. We shall all greatly look forward to hearing him again. I speak quite feelingly on this point, because when I got up to make my maiden speech, some years ago now, everybody went out to tea and there was no mention of my speech, until six hours later, when some amends were made. So chilling was the atmosphere that I have not spoken in this House again until to-day. That will not be the fate of the noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech. Secondly, it is also a little embarrassing because he said so much of sense which is in my own speech, and one is bound to repeat some of the things that one has in mind, not merely for the sake of the repetition but because one wants to clarify or to put a slant on them.
I come from an area which has a large number of immigrants. There is a great concentration of them in Birmingham. In the Diocese of Birmingham I include Smethwick and part of West Bromwich. The diocese as a whole has a 10 per cent. coloured population, against 1½ per cent. in the country as a whole. It is a growing problem. It is not one that we are likely to settle here and now; it will be with us for the next fifteen or twenty years, because new problems will arise upon it. I am delighted to find that the
110
Government have set forward some interesting propositions which will help to solve the problem. I do not think they go quite far enough. I am also indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for having introduced this Motion. My ears are not attuned immediately to the particular slants of political controversy about which some complaints have been made. I must have missed them. I certainly felt a little blast when I was on the look-out for them in many of the subsequent speeches. But I am grateful for this opportunity to debate this subject. I think it is a subject to which we shall have to give a lot of detailed thought.
So far as I can see it, there are two sides to the problem of immigration: there are a negative and a positive side. I do not subscribe to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, though I see what she meant, when she wanted to leave out "not" from the Ten Commandments. It would leave us in some grave difficulties. On the negative side, I myself can see no alternative to some form of control. Most people have come round to that point of view, and I think it is doctrinaire and unrealistic to pretend that this is a decision that can be put off. The debate should centre round the nature and the extent of such control and the factors which should be taken into account.
The factors that should be taken into account in the countries from which these immigrants come are, I think, three, namely, a clean bill of health; a job to come to, and—one point which has not been mentioned and which may not be practicable—some preparation before they come as to what they are likely to expect. It is still true that some of them expect a Garden of Eden, and most of them find instead Birmingham or a place like it. They should be prepared, if need be by efforts from the Government, for a way of life not necessarily British, but one that is based on life in an over-crowded island. And, moreover, they will be living in one of the four most over-crowded parts of this over-crowded island.
There is one further point on the negative side which I would raise. It has already been mentioned, but I should like to put a slightly different

111
slant upon it. It is a major cause of the moral problems of immigrants. Recent proposals have sometimes spoken about further divisions within families. At present wives, actual or Common Law, fiancées, and all children below 16, or possibly below 18 in some cases, may enter freely. However much control of immigration may be needed, it is a desperate measure to cut in half families of peoples whose culture is always towards living in the "larger family". I think it was the noble Lord who spoke before me who mentioned the vexed question of the mother-in-law. This is not a humorous point, but a serious one which is sometimes forgotten.
The absence of the older generation among immigrants—and they all tend to be 20 to 25 on arriving—is one of the chief causes of anti-social behaviour. The older generation in most non-European cultures are the guardians of ethics and religion, and also the guardians of the small children while parents go to the fields or other places to work. It is from them that they learn right social conduct and, for the most part, their religious beliefs. Moreover, in stages of immigration when men only come to a country, there are grave moral problems. We have in Birmingham a very high V.D. rate, in spite of people saying that it is not stronger among immigrants. That may be true of the rest of the country, but it is not true of Birmingham. Probably well over a thousand British girls and women are living with men from overseas, and there is a great burden of children "in care" from mixed liaisons which have not lasted. The reestablishment of the family as the basis of culture is a great need among both West Indians and Asians in Britain.
That raises the question of the total number, but again I would support the noble Lord who suggested that when a person is coming to this country for a job (and I hope that they will be for the most part skilled jobs until we have the matter a little clearer) he can set out the members of his family whom he would like to bring in. One would have to limit it, otherwise the whole village would come because they are all related in some way. We must also see that we do not have a geriatric problem on our hands. But there is the
112
point that the older generation have a stabilising effect on immigrants to this country.
In regard to deportation, which has not been much mentioned, immigrants themselves are among the first to wish for a firm policy about this. They know full well that the solid efforts of the majority to live a peaceable and useful life in Britain can be ruined by the violently antisocial behaviour of a few. An ex-Jamaican policeman claimed that to deport after a second criminal conviction would be an action to assist immigrants, and would receive the support of a tremendous number of immigrants. Some people suggest that fares might be paid so that people could go back. I think that would be dangerous, because, like the people who went to the funeral, they might come just for the ride.
On the positive side there are three points I would mention. First is the fact which is often overlooked in debates on this subject when passions are aroused: that there is a great amount of good done by immigrants. Cases of crime concerning immigrants hit the headlines, but what is not recorded—because it is not news—is the amount of good neighbourliness, hard work and cheerful industry which these overseas people have brought to our English community. They have brought their gifts and skills and have enriched our lives, and we should be unwise and ungrateful to forget it. The Health Service and the transport services have already been mentioned, and many such services would not be able to carry on if it were not for coloured immigrant labour. In the hospitals, and in particular in the nursing of the old and of mental patients and in many other jobs—in at least one Smethwick foundry over half the labour force is composed of immigrants—they have become essential to our country's life. Therefore we shall need to keep up the flow; but, again, it must be limited.
The second area where a positive policy is needed is housing. I know that this lack of housing has been one of the three major causes of friction, and there have been no special, exceptional provisions for the housing of immigrants; they take their place in the long queue. This is different from what happens on the Continent—for example, in Germany, in Switzerland and in the Netherlands. In

113
the Netherlands special provision is made on the grounds that immigrant labour is needed and therefore must be housed. The Dutch example is probably the best of the three. Immigrants there are housed in small clusters mingled with the normal population. I doubt whether it would be true to say that if you went round to see the immigrant people and asked, "Are you happy?", they would all say, "Yes, we are very happy; everybody is very nice and kind to us." That would be contrary to my experience in a large number of countries, not only in England but in Europe. I think to suggest that that would be the case would be over-pleading too much.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, quoted some figures, and mentioned a book published in 1850. The same thing is true in Birmingham, even if it is not of other parts: there are simply no houses for extra population. It has led to a situation where Indians and Pakistanis have bought up houses which they are letting at from £2 15s. to £3 15s. per room to whole families of West Indians and Irish; houses with hardly any amenities. The kitchen and toilet have to be shared with six other families, and in many cases there is no bathroom. I am not speaking from figures. I have spent a great deal of time with my friends there. I have seen for myself the conditions, and have had meals with these people in going from one room to another. I must say that they are not particularly grousing about it, and I did not go there to find out conditions; I went to see them on a friendly visit, and I discovered that what I have said is true of a large number of houses.
As other noble Lords have said, this is a vitally important matter and we must have a "crash" programme of housing. It may be that we must have almost a reactionary programme in some way, and go back to building "prefabs" in little, odd places. They can be made extraordinarily attractive and anything will be better than some of the conditions in which these people live. There is a definite shortage of housing—not because people want to be economic, but because there are no houses at all. Some of the better off people move out some miles, but there is still a very great need. Because there are not enough houses to go round one gets all the evils of high rents, overcrowding and the social and moral consequences
114
which arise from bad living conditions. What is needed is more houses, even of an emergency type, the regulation of multi-occupation by planning permission and the licensing of property for a limited number of people. I know that the legislation is there, but the authorities need to be encouraged to carry it out.
The third need on the positive side is education. There will be serious educational and integration problems in schools. The proportion of coloured children in any school should not, in the view of the Commonwealth Advisory Council, be more than a third. There are many cases in the Midlands of half a school, and some cases of practically the whole school, being coloured. Special provision ought to be made by the Government for educational grants, to deal with children who do not know the English language and have not been encouraged to learn it. At times, when we have tried to put up voluntary schemes for something of this sort, we have been accused of segregation. Of course we shall be accused of segregation policies. Whenever one tries to do something good there will be people who will misunderstand. There are always people who are falling over backwards to say, "This is due to race problems and race prejudice"—like the man who tried to get a job on the television. He was trying to get a job as an announcer, but he stuttered so badly that he failed, and he came out complaining that it was because of race prejudice.
In schools one has great difficulties with coloured children who need discipline and a certain amount of ticking-off. They come out and complain that they were given it because of their race. Of course one gets these small problems. But, whatever people may think, it is important that these children should learn English well, in order that other people should not be handicapped. I admit that it does not take very long. They pick up the language very quickly.
The word "immigrant" is rapidly becoming a synonym for "coloured", and that is dangerous and misleading because those words cover a wide variety of entirely different peoples even within the ranks, for example, of West Indians. This is important. Inter-island differences

115
are marked so that a city like Birmingham has regions in which one or other group lives. Handsworth is predominantly Jamaican. Saltley is the home of the Barbadians and the people of the Leeward Islands. There is often more of a caste and class difference amongst the immigrants themselves than there is in our own country, and we have to take note of that. In other words, there is a sense in which we must learn to discriminate; not to lump them all together—Pakistanis and West Indians. We have to know where they come from, the jobs they do. That is going to take time, and there will have to be plenty of people to do it.
We have been lucky in Birmingham in having a liaison officer, and the local authority has helped tremendously. I have had a special man in Canon Burrows who has done marvellous work among these people. He is greatly loved and that is his sole job. There are many voluntary agencies, such as East and West which has a People to People Week, which try to bring the people together. As Elspeth Huxley said, in Back Street New Worlds:
"They have taken the brunt of the invasion and their attitude has been the unacknowledged but decisive factor in shaping our national response."
I do want to pay tribute to all the voluntary bodies, such as the Church and the local authorities, which have made this possible. I am speaking for the immigrants themselves who have often told me how much they would like to express publicly their thanks.
Lastly—and I shall close with this point—Kipling, who is not altogether to be trusted on the matter of immigration, said some very wise words, in talking about Sussex:
"God gave all men all earth to love,
But since man's heart is small,
Ordained for each one spot should prove,
Beloved over all."
There, I think, he spoke very great sense with a deep philosophy behind it—all earth to love, including aliens as well as members of the Commonwealth. But he was a practical realist as well, and he knew that one gains depth in having a small beloved unity. That unity has not got to be so enlarged that you love every other country but your own, and
116
every place other than the one you are living in. Nor, on the other hand, has it to be a tight little possessive thing—"This is mine and you are not going to share it."
What the balance is between having a place of your own and how much you give, will vary according to one's upbringing. Whether it be 15 per cent. or 20 per cent., I do not know. But there certainly ought to be this outgoing love and sympathy. We cannot legislate for courtesy; we cannot legislate for love and understanding. But we can legislate so that some of the abuses are taken away, and in order to make it easier for voluntary societies to carry out this most essential work.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to join the right reverend Prelate in offering congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, on his maiden speech. To me it sounded rather more confident than the normal maiden speech. It was well informed, able and interesting, and, above all, it was audible. I hope that we shall hear from him again. Indeed, I almost hope that he will make the same speech again, when it will be possible to deal with some of the points that he made. As things are, he was free to say what he wished without any fear of being contradicted to-day.
The noble Lord and I have one thing in common (I hope he will not mind my reminding him of a painful incident) that is, that we have both been rejected by the electors of Central Wandsworth. I have now got over the feeling. It happened a long time ago, in 1922. But I was very badly beaten at my first election, and I have never been beaten so badly since then. However, I hope that we shall hear from the noble Lord again, and I am sure that we shall be greatly informed and enlightened by any speeches that he cares to make.
If I may take the liberty of contradicting him on one point, I think it is a dangerous thing in London, at any rate, to get into conversation with taxi-drivers. I think that the greatest service we can render is to let them get on with their driving. They are often somewhat terrifying, and if to the terror were added a conversation on immigration, I think we might well suffer.

117
I should like to say a few things about the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. He started off by telling us that he wished to be as non-controversial as possible, and wished to take this subject out of the realm of Party politics. On the whole, he succeeded pretty well, and I congratulate him on the tone of his speech. I think he tried to be objective and, while he certainly was controversial in a good many respects—and one would expect that—I have no complaint to make of the arguments he put forward, though in many respects I would not agree with him.
I believe that we have to look at this question from an angle which so far has not been examined, and that is the fact that we are a Commonwealth. Being members of a Commonwealth implies certain things. And, first, it means that there is a very special relationship between the various members of the Commonwealth and between the various peoples of the Commonwealth. We have also to bear in mind that by far the great majority of the peoples of the Commonwealth are coloured, so that, unless we have some form of birth control in the Commonwealth, the discrepancy is going to be greater and greater as time goes on.
Then we have to face the fact that in many respects the link between the members of the Commonwealth is somewhat tenuous. At one time we hoped that we should all have the Monarchy to bind us together, but we have not got that. Most of the members of the Commonwealth are Republics, and the ties are really thin. Therefore, if we want to maintain the Commonwealth, we have to be extremely careful over the way we deal with this problem.
Some noble Lords have dealt with it (and I think this approach was not altogether absent from the speech by the right reverend Prelate) from the point of view that immigration is an evil. It may be a necessary evil, the argument runs, for we have to admit some immigrants because they are necessary for our economy. Where would our hospitals be, our transport, and so on, without them? The view taken is that, for the sake of appearances, we have to allow a certain number to come in, but that we should restrict immigration; that we must devise all sorts of means to limit the numbers, and
118
make it more and more difficult for these people to come in. I do not say that those statements have been deliberately made, but I could not help feeling that among a good many people there has been that sort of approach to the question of immigration. I am not accusing the right reverend Prelate of that attitude, but I had a feeling that there was behind his approach the sort of attitude of, "If only we could avoid having immigrants here, we should do so".
My own view—though I am sure that many noble Lords opposite will disagree with me—is that immigration is to be welcomed. I believe that the more the different races and peoples of the world can mix, can get to know one another and can live together on amicable terms, the better. Apart from the Commonwealth, we are living in a world where the great preponderance of people is made up of coloured people; and I myself have no doubt, looking ahead to the next 50 years, that the power and influence in the world are going to pass to coloured peoples. Therefore, from our point of view, it is foolish, if nothing else, to assume that for all time we are the superior people and that it is for us to dictate or lay down laws by which we are going to be kept apart as far as possible.
That is the approach that I myself would wish to make to this question, and I want to be quite frank and say that, when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was introduced, I was disposed to be against it. I felt it was a mistake, from the point of view of the maintenance of the Commonwealth, to try to restrict immigration into this country. I felt that we were the Mother Country, and that it was unnatural for a mother to say to her children, "You must not conic here, even though we are united in one Commonwealth".
But, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, we have to face this situation as it is now. To-day, there is limitation on immigration; and I accept it. And I would not advocate that we should go back on it. I do not think it is possible to turn the clock back in these matters, and we must face up to the fact that immigration is here to stay. From that point of view I agree with the noble Viscount that, since we have an Act to control immigration, it is wrong

119
that this Act should be evaded. And I am grateful to him for having put this Motion down and so enabled us to discuss how we can prevent evasion, what other steps need to be taken, and generally to give us an opportunity of discussing the whole question.
I will say a word or two later on about the four steps that the noble Viscount proposes for dealing with that evasion. What I should like to do now, having set out the approach that I think we ought to make to the question of immigration, is to say a few words on how we should deal with immigrants once they get here. First, we ought to aim to make them part of our society. The word "integration" has been used, and it has been criticised by a number of people—and I want to criticise it myself. I believe that integration is impossible. We need to face up to the fact that we cannot integrate people of such different civilisations and outlooks, at any rate not for a good many generations. Nevertheless, we ought to try to absorb them so far as possible. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will not like the word "absorb", but it is preferable to "integration". I think he understands what I mean. We want to treat them so that there is no discrimination against them in any way, on account of their colour or for any other reason, and we want to help them to become a part of our British life.
Among the aspects discussed have been the problems that face immigrants when they arrive here. One is the question of housing. I think that if we permit immigrants to come here on the basis that they are necessary for our economy (and that is, very largely, the basis on which many of the immigrants arrive: I leave out students for the moment; I am talking of people who come here to work with a permit, whether it is an "A", "B" or "C" permit), then there is an obligation on us to provide the conditions under which they can live decently, and not the sort of conditions which the right reverend Prelate has described and which the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, has told us people in Central Wandsworth have to live under. One can hardly blame the immigrants for getting hold of such accommodation as is open to them; one can hardly blame them for letting out the accommodation, once they get it, into
120
rooms. All that is natural and understandable. And when the families come and there is no accommodation for them, they can hardly be blamed for packing themselves into one room. I do not think we have sufficiently appreciated our own responsibility in the matter.
Talking of housing, we should face the fact that if the local authority, which is the housing authority, were to give priority to immigrants, there would be social problems even greater than we already have. So I do not think that would be a solution. In my view, it is a matter for the Government: they must make themselves responsible for providing accommodation to immigrants—and I think the sooner they start doing that the better. Various suggestions have been made. One is that, in the case of single people, hostels should be acquired or put up to provide accommodation. I think that the Government, while recognising that they cannot do this immediately, ought to accept the responsibility for providing accommodation for the people who are permitted to come here to work.
On the question of education, I would say that again I appreciate the need for seeing that the schools are not over-weighted by immigrant children who might be a handicap to British children because their progress will not be as good as that of the normal English child, Therefore, I approve of what my noble friend Lord Stonham told us is Government policy in this matter. I think we must face the fact that, looking ahead, we shall be having another problem: the children of the present immigrants will grow up and they will not necessarily (those of them who benefit by the education we provide) be content, as are the majority, to become unskilled workers doing the work that nobody else wants to do of looking after refuse or the more arduous work (if it is more arduous) of bus conductors or suchlike. I think they will expect to play a full part in the economic life of the country, and we ought to be preparing ourselves for that state of affairs. They will want to go into the professions even more than at present and to take part in business life generally. If we really mean what we say in speaking of "integration"—what I mean by "absorption"—they must play a full part in every way in the economic

121
life of the country as well as in its social life.
That, my Lords, leads me to the social question. If we really mean that they are not to be second-class citizens, they must be accepted in all ranks of society. I know that is difficult at the moment, but as I pointed out, this will not so much apply to the present as to the next generation of immigrants. As to the third generation of immigrants, they probably will have become fully absorbed and educated arid be on terms of equality with members of the British public; and we shall have to face up to that position.
The noble and learned Viscount devoted a considerable part of his speech to the question of how we can deal with evasion. As I have said, I fully agree that if there is an Act of Parliament one must make sure it is not going to be evaded, that the people intended to come to this country under the Act should be admitted, not others. I thought the noble Viscount went rather beyond evasion in the suggestions he made; perhaps he intended to do so. For instance, the setting of a limit to the total number of immigrants, and the inclusion within that limit of the dependants, was rather more than dealing with the subject of evasion; it was an attempt to deal with the whole question of immigration on much more radical and, as I think, more reactionary lines than does the present Act of Parliament. I hope the Government will not accept that we should impose this arbitrary limit and include within it the members of the families.
I think my noble friend was right in pointing out a possible implication of this limit. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did not accept this implication, but it could be that the effect of imposing this limitation would be to keep out dependants. The noble Lord shakes his head; but I contend that it could have this effect and I am prepared to demonstrate this by figures, but I do not want to take up the time of the House. It could be that the effect would be to keep out certain dependants because they were over and above the maximum number that had been prescribed in any one year. If, for the sake of argument, we said that 200,000 immigrants could come into the country, and it transpired that the admission of certain immigrants' dependants would
122
cause that number to be exceeded, obviously they would have to be excluded. That might be the effect. But I do not want to press that point too hard. One could possibly make provision for that in the maximum figure; but it is certainly an extension of the Act and not merely an attempt to deal with evasion. So it is with some of the other suggestions made, which I would agree require careful consideration; but it seems to me that they are certainly going beyond merely attempting to prevent evasion. It may be right that we should examine these matters, but I hope it will not be suggested that they are designed to deal only with evasion; they go beyond that.
I think that is all I want to say. Whatever we may say, however much we may desire to avoid political or Party political controversy in this matter, there is no doubt a strong division of opinion on this subject. I think it arises fundamentally, as I said earlier, between those who feel that we should welcome immigrants so long as we can absorb them—and I think it is a good thing that members of the Commonwealth should come here and become absorbed in our life and civilisation—and those who think that immigration is an evil in itself, that we ought to keep ourselves to ourselves, and that admitting a certain number of immigrants into this country is something that is perhaps unavoidable but should be resisted so far as possible. But I think that we would all agree that those whom we do admit should have the fullest opportunity of living the lives of the people of this country educationally, socially, and in every other way.
I hope that one of the outcomes of this debate will be that we can eliminate any idea of immigrants being regarded as second-class citizens and that we can, if need be by legislation, do what is necessary to avoid and prevent racial discrimination—and, as the noble Lady said, religious discrimination—and incitement. I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for initiating this debate, which I am sure will be useful and which, so far at any rate, has been carried on in the spirit in which he wished it to be.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords. I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord during his

123
speech. If I gave the impression that I did not in any way want to have immigrants in this country then I gave an entirely wrong one. I am sorry if that is so. I delight in the companionship of so many of these people, and I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it was worth while my having said it, in order to get these words from the right reverend Prelate.
6.20 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, upon a powerful and skilled maiden speech. It is quite obvious that the loss of another place is a gain to your Lordships' House, and we look forward to hearing his contributions to further debates in the days to come. I would also say how welcome this debate is, and how grateful we should be to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for introducing this Motion. As he said, this is a subject which should not be treated as something to be avoided, something not to be referred to in polite society. There have been many appeals, much publicised, for the question of coloured immigration to be kept out of politics. I disagree with that entirely. We cannot keep the racial issue out of politics, because it is a subject on which people feel strongly, and all national problems are political problems. But that does not mean that they are Party political problems. Most citizens have views, but not necessarily Party views, on this problem. Indeed, the views on the problem of coloured immigration cut right across Party lines. We should welcome facing this as a political issue, if not a Party one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, feelings run strong. Prejudices and grievances are felt on both sides. Her Majesty's Government have announced that they are going to introduce a Bill dealing with racial discrimination and incitement to race hatred. Welcome as this Bill may be, I do not believe that it will cure the evil. The noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, talked of human attitudes. We may by the sanction of law make people act differently, but we cannot by the sanction of law make people think differently. It may be
124
reactionary, it may be regrettable; but if we ever held an Election in this country, with extreme views on both sides, with the cry of "Free entry to all immigrants!", on one side, and the cry, "Keep Britain White!" on the other, as the main issue, I am afraid that at the present time those who say, "Keep Britain White!", would win. Fortunately, this is not the position, and I hope that it never will be. But unless the problem is faced boldly and clearly, in a non-Party way—as, indeed, Her Majesty's Government and the noble and learned Viscount both seem to be doing—such a position may become possible in future. The time of grace is limited, and action such as was announced by the Prime Minister yesterday in another place is needed.
I cannot forget that the existence of this problem is to some extent our own responsibility. It is to some extent an indictment of the colonial policies and inadequacies of action of past Governments. If, in the last 65 years, greater efforts had been made, and more money had been used, to raise social standards and stimulate economic developments in the Colonies, a problem of this kind would not be with us to-day. But it is wrong to blame the men of the 1900s or 1920s or 1930s. As so often in the history of social progress, only now do we see the inadequacies of past thought and effort. We have only to look at the Industrial Revolution to prove that point. In those days, good, honest and Christian citizens—perhaps better than many of us—accepted child labour, the very idea of which horrifies us to-day. But that was the contemporary attitude. Therefore, while to some extent this problem is of our own making, we should not blame those who carried the responsibility for these inadequacies over the past 65 years.
Nevertheless, as a result of the past, we find to-day a large-scale immigration from backward lands: more and more families coming here to get the social benefits and material rewards which are unobtainable in their own lands. As other noble Lords have said, we in this country owe a great debt to the coloured immigrants. I have a feeling of gratitude, mingled with some feeling of shame, because the position has arisen that the chores of the nation are increasingly delegated to coloured immigrants. The question I ask myself is: why is this?

125
Are we too superior, too socially advanced, or too low in our wage levels that so much of the unskilled and unpleasant daily tasks have to be left to these men?
Noble Lords have said that the buses would not run, the Tubes might stop, the rubbish would not be collected, and certainly the nursing staffs in hospitals would be seriously depleted and probably some hospitals might have to close, if it were not for the services these people render. If we had not these coloured immigrants, these services would have to be done by our reluctant citizens, at a far higher cost; and to get the British labour required, unskilled wages would have to rise steeply, with consequential effects on the local rates for public services and, remembering the built-in differentials in our industrial system, on national wage levels. It is no exaggeration, I think, to say that these men contribute to our holding our present wage levels, at a critical competitive time for British industry in the world's markets.
Having said that, I believe that it is in the interests of the men and their families here that the Government, by the measures they are proposing, and, I trust, by the steps taken to avoid evasion, such as the noble and learned Viscount suggested, should strictly hold the position steady until the community can absorb all those here at the present time. The flow of immigrants should be limited to the socially absorptive capacity, as it grows: until housing and education are adequate; until our social sense is aroused, by the Government's efforts, to accept gladly the presence of these men, both skilled and unskilled, and until they also feel themselves part of, and not separate from the rest of, the community.
As noble Lords have said in various speeches to-day, that is a tremendous task and responsibility of the Government. This is a national problem, not a local one, and therefore I hope that the burden of expense and special steps which the Government may take to encourage (to use that horrid word) integration will be an Exchequer expenditure and not on local rates, or the burden will be unfair on local communities and resentment will be fostered still further locally.
My final point (I am glad to see the Under-Secretary for the Colonies here),
126
again in the interests of immigrants here and those wishing to come here, is that the Government should at once campaign to make known in Colonial territories, and I think mainly in the West Indies, that the Government limitations and restrictions arc not a colour bar policy, but are in the true interests of the nationals of those territories, both here and in the territories themselves. I have recently been in the West Indies (the noble Lord has, too) and I was shocked at the newspaper articles, the letters and propaganda which depict Government restrictions as part of a selfish, colour-conscious Britain, against whose restrictions a fight must be waged in the interests of colour. There is not a word in those local papers to counter the local effects. I would ask the Government to use now all modern methods of communication—radio, paid advertisements, contributed articles—to explain why, in the long run, it is for their own individual and collective benefit as well as for our own social orderliness in this country, that Britain should take the steps she has taken and those she is about to take.
6.32 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, to-night I speak as Chairman of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council, which was set up in 1962 by the then Home Secretary. While I agree with the last speaker about the burden of the cash content being spread throughout the country, I cannot agree with all the other things he said. As a Council we have regular monthly meetings, and a great deal of hard work is done in between. From the evidence that we have had from visits paid and papers that have been submitted, we have found that a great deal is being done at local level where the problem is more acutely felt. But there is a great deal more to be done, and there is no question that the cost is difficult to meet.
All members of the Council have been surprised at how definitely the problems fall into a series of broad general categories, and because we have felt there was an urgency in the problem, and it was not one that could be left sine die, we have submitted to the Home Secretary of the day three reports which have been published as White Papers, and the recommendations in those reports are what I propose to ask your Lordships to consider.

127
All these recommendations are practical recommendations. But recommendations, as everything else that has been spoken of to-day, need the co-operation and participation of the nation, as a whole, and not just a few people labouring in that direction. The right reverend Prelate did not report what he might well have said, and that is the wonderful lead that Birmingham has given to the country in the way in which it has handled the housing problem. But I, personally, am sad to hear so many noble Lords talk of a second-class citizen. Have we ever accepted that a second-class citizen exists? Do we really believe that we are aiming to allow that the immigrant, whether coloured or not, be a second-class citizen? I feel that we as a nation have failed a great deal. We must always take a part of the onus of that failure.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is my noble friend suggesting that second-class citizens have been created, and that we have failed? The whole object of the Government's policy is to ensure that this does not happen.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: I am sorry. As usual, I have not made myself as clear as I hoped to do. What I mean is that people are talking about a second-class citizen. What is a second-class citizen'? The first time I heard the term used I asked three civil servants what it meant, because I thought they would know; but they did not. Since that day I have taken great exception to the expression "second-class citizen".
I feel that nobody makes enough of the fact that we need these people, irrespective of land of origin or colour, just as much as we need our own people. Without them, as many noble Lords have said, we should be in dire trouble. I am surprised that, although noble Lords have spoken of transport and hospitals, few have talked about other things. Industries, by employing more members from Commonwealth territories, in the shape of Pakistanis and others, have been able to keep the wheels going and have achieved very successful outputs. This is where we as a nation have not behaved as well as we usually do, and as we should like the world to believe we do. We have not made sufficient impression on our colleagues and other
128
nationals that to be against coloured immigrants because of one's own feelings and one's own possessions is hardly worthy of a man or woman who claims to be British. Every time we discuss these things it comes to people not liking the habits of the new entrants, and the fact that they fear that their own property may be damaged due to those habits. For this reason, I was delighted to hear the news that a goodly number of Members in another place are taking this question up on a non-Party basis. This, I feel, will make a bigger contribution than anything else.
One realises only too well that troubles arise from different customs, and especially from varying ways of living. But basically—and of this I am as sure as I have ever been of anything—the biggest single problem is housing; and this problem is extremely difficult from the local authorities' point of view, because if they were to use the powers they have they would be in the difficult position of having to re-house those people whom they deem to be in over-occupied premises, and by rehousing them they would arouse local feeling, because the local people would feel that the entrant was being housed ahead of them. We, as a Council, have again and again traced local difficulties back to their source, and always they come back to multi-occupation, lack of available lodgings, overcrowding and lack of understanding of housing regulations. One can realise that in the country of origin life is much simpler, and buying a house is the termination of an undertaking. There are no complicated regulations to comply with, such as the owner of a house has to comply with in this country.
The first Report that we placed before the Home Secretary of the day (Command 2119) stated that, in the view of the Council, local authorities already had sufficient powers to deal with the situation in their areas, but not all local authorities were using the powers, and for a variety of reasons. The most often reported reason is always this question of re-housing people.
Nobody has mentioned to-day the fact that if an immigrant puts his name on the housing list as soon as he arrives in a locality, and waits his turn alongside all others, when he is allocated a house there

129
is never any trouble and, indeed, in some localities houses have been allocated a little sooner than the time of the normal waiting period. But this question of housing inserts itself into everything. We feel that explanations in regard to local regulations must be made available to those who are acquiring houses, and who are ready to assume responsibility in the locality. There is evidence all over the country that the rapacious salesmen land rather naive entrants with houses which need a great deal of repair, houses for which there is not a life tenancy as they thought, and all manner of things of that type.
Therefore, it is not only our own housing authorities which are having trouble, but also the people who are trying, as landlords, to tidy up the situation which rather slick estate agents on occasion have created. We feel as a Council that a great number of leaflets, in a number of different languages, should be available. This is very difficult indeed. The number of different languages spoken, the fact that many of the entrants do not even read their own language, present a problem which makes for the need for a great many more people to explain a great deal more through interpreters at local level. This is why I began by stating that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was right in saying that the question of costs should be spread over the nation as a whole, and not placed merely on the local authority. If the local authority have to supply liaison workers, special visitors, special types of leaflets, translators, and printing, they are a little dubious sometimes of undertaking the responsibility which all this would entail.
Our Council put next to housing the question of education. They look upon the needs for the immigrant as housing first, education second, and the placement of the young third. The problem of education is so difficult that I will not burden your Lordships with all that I could say. But I would say that it is made harder, in areas where there is already a shortage of teachers, by the fact that special teachers are needed in addition to help with the entrants, and unless some assistance is given the situation will be impossible. The Ministry of Education have done great things already, and have put up the quotas in the areas where such teachers
130
are required. But, even so, I think a great deal more emphasis will have to be focused on ways to overcome this particular situation. A fact which few people recognise, but which is a real one, is that quite often a child of 9, 10 or 11 is brought by air from its home and placed in a school a day or two days after it arrives in this country. The child has already suffered a great change, and can hardly be expected to be able to join in the life of the school automatically. This puts on the teacher yet more trouble.
We as a Council feel that there is a great deal that ought to be undertaken straight away. We cannot accept that it is good for a person to speak English with the intonation of his own country, which is not understood here. So recommendations have been made that the hazard of intonation should be watched and corrected. We have therefore suggested that language laboratories should study this question, and special classes be devoted to it. The reason why we are doing this is that, after having interviewed a number of personnel officers, we found that the greatest obstacle to giving good jobs to young people on leaving school was that their communication over the telephone was so difficult, and they were not offered the better jobs because of the need to correct this failure.
We also feel that there ought to be a great deal done in the way of teaching English to adults. This is much more difficult to carry through, because adults do not like to go to a school to learn English. They say that the children's desks are uncomfortable—and small wonder at that—and they also hate attending at the right time, because they feel that to be required to do so is treating them like children. The fact that some of them cannot read at all does not seem to present itself, and these are things where patience and a good deal of attention are needed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, my Council feel that there will not be the same difficulty in the next generation or the succeeding one; but they are very apprehensive of the situation to-day, where so much ought to be taught and the labourers in the vineyard are few.
In regard to the placement of school leavers, we have had a good deal of discussion with and evidence from youth

131
employment officers. They state that, because of the language and communication difficulty, it takes as long to place a young immigrant as it does a disabled person, because the right place must be found, for a great mistake is made in placing a person where later he will be unhappy and deemed a failure. That makes it quite evident that information must be available to parents as well as to pupils. The late entrant must be given the opportunity to remain longer in school, and all the ramifications of education should be understood by the parents just as much as by the pupil.
I was thrilled to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens. He knew what he was talking about, and he had the solution to some of the problems, But, above all, he said quite categorically what many of us must feel, and that is unless the burden of this integrating, assimilating, absorbing—whatever you like to call it—is spread among many, the job can never be done. Neither legislation nor enthusiastic talking will make people do something. It is only example that in the long run will tell. This is where we feel that one should alleviate local fear in regard to the things they believe are bad. The right reverend Prelate said, or indicated, that one of the things that immigrants brought to the country was V.D. On the evidence we have had, this is not so. There may be a little but, unfortunately, this is an evil which we have in the country. The fact that we are screening and watching for T.B. should help us to avoid something else that might become a worry in the country, and might, in the long run, be a difficulty and exacerbate bad feeling.
However, there is no question at all that in the field of health more health visitors are wanted, and more people who can translate for the health visitors. This again is a local expense, and a local problem, when health visitors are already at a premium. We feel that in those places—and there are some—where a good health visitor is able to visit a new entrant and explain how, why and when, much is done in the direction of the solution of such problems as dustbins, noise, over-smelly and rich foods, and cooking. I am ashamed to say that I never realised that a human being could acquire and eat food that would be condemned if it were on sale. I understand
132
this is one of the many difficulties we are meeting.
I do not think anybody has shown how fearful immigrants naturally are because they do not understand. I am quite convinced that our health visitors or official visitors must remember this, and that they ought to know something about the religious customs of the country of origin, about national habits, and a little about the way that other people live, eat and enjoy themselves. Their living, eating and enjoying is diametrically opposed to the way we would want to live, eat and enjoy. Of course, we think we are right, and of course the immigrant thinks he is. It is for this reason that our Council have recommended that local authorities should have liaison officers at the town hall with adequate translators to be of a real service to those who wish to have any information, and to debunk the suspicion with which the immigrant regards all officialdom and relieve the worry he feels as a result of visits. We have suggested educational adjustments and have begged for adult teaching. Great stress has been laid on the suggestion of having conferences for teachers, health visitors, youth employment officers and welfare officers so that they may learn something about the origins of the habits which the immigrants practise.
We have had one signal success. On our recommendation a small sum of money has been put at the disposal—I need hardly say, with the usual safeguards—of a committee which is fortunate enough to have the services of a very devoted and very experienced advisory officer who is independent (I am sure she thanks heaven for this) of official control. She is dedicated in her aims and is very valuable indeed in her work. She visits local authorities and advises; she tells one local authority what is being done in another local authority. If this is done carefully and tactfully enough it works very well. But, of course, only just the fringe is touched. Local authorities, I believe, have done a very good job. But they are fearful of expenditure and are nervous of attack by their own residents. This is why I am so immensely happy at the Statement which was made yesterday by the Prime Minister. To my mind, it is a real step in the direction that we all believe can help

133
and can do the things we want. If housing, education, placement and health can all be tackled, although advance will be slow, methods can be quietly and successfully introduced and I think a great many of the problems can be solved.
My Lords, I think the whole problem has been exaggerated out of all measure because individuals have thought that that was the way of gaining what they wanted. We as a nation must make the individual realise that in this country the individual and his possessions are only a part of a whole. This is a country that all of us endeavour to serve, and many of us believe it can do what no other country can do. But, in order to achieve this, it is necessary for individuals to sink their personal wishes and their personal ambitions and go forward to that time when there will be no difference between one person and another, and all will have the same chance, although some will be luckier than others, to fulfil their ambitions and hopes.
6.54 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this is a non-Party issue, and I should like to start—I am pleased to be able to do so by saying that I agree with the view of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that we need further legislation on this matter. I say this, I think for the same reason that many people have said it, because unless we limit immigration, the number of people of different cultures in our own country will end up as a problem which will not be soluble later except with efforts we may not be able to bring to bear on it. We do not wish to get into the American position.
I agree with many people who have said that in the long term this is in the interests of the immigrants themselves. There is no question about it. We must have breathing space so that we may get a second generation of immigrants; and it is with the second generation that integration, whatever you like to call it, really counts. I am a Scot. I moved down to this part of the world many years ago. This country has faced problems of integration, of the Irish and all sorts of other people over the years, but it was always the second generation that really fitted in.
This is a greater problem, but it is still in essence the same problem. When one looks at it in the broadest possible
134
way, one finds there is an analogy between what has been happening in this country over the years and this situation with which we are faced with regard to immigration. We shall not solve this problem until the rate of development and investment in the West Indies, Africa, Pakistan and elsewhere is such that unemployment ceases in those countries, the demand for labour in this country diminishes, and the pressure from those countries to emigrate to this country disappears. I do not see much hope of solving the problem in a few years, so we must therefore limit the rate of immigration into this country; and we need immediate legislation to enable that control to be exercised.
I would say one or two words about the industrial situation, about which not much has been said this afternoon. I am associated with a company that has employed a high percentage of coloured people. I keep on mentioning "coloured people" because this is the focus of the problem. We have not got a problem with people from other Western European countries or people with the same culture as ourselves. We have employed from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. of coloured people. We had in the factory managers and representatives who I am able to say were completely liberal about this problem; to them there was no problem at all.
These coloured people began to be employed, and after a year or two it was acknowledged by people who were full of the milk of human kindness and full of ideas on international brotherhood, such as people who had been bred in the Labour movement in this country, that we really did have problems, and that those problems arose not from our attitudes but from the attitudes of the coloured people. We have had difficulties such as those which have been referred to by the right reverend Prelate, of colour bars between peoples from the West Indies, Nigeria and Pakistan, and we could not agree to those colour bars being operated. We had West Indians saying, "I am not going to work here because there is a Nigerian on the next machine, and I object". We got to the stage of saying: "You have a choice: you can either work beside the Nigerian or you can leave the company". I think this is the correct attitude to adopt, because

135
one thing coloured people must face is that if they join this community of ours they may affect its outlook, and they have to remember the lesson that when in Rome one lives as the Romans live.
We have had other problems, such as the interpretations of integrity, of hygiene and of other matters by people from cultures which are different from those in this country. There is no implication in my remark that their interpretations are better or are worse than ours. They are different. These do create extreme problems in factories. They do not come to light in public discussions, but they are there.
We have also the problem of promotion, and here I think the coloured people are not getting a fair crack of the whip. This is a very difficult problem to solve. People all the way down the line have as their responsibility the task of deciding who shall get promotion. I think prejudice enters into this. If you are in charge of a large factory you cannot demand that people be unprejudiced; they do not know that they are being prejudiced.
There is one thing which might be done here. I was very interested some years ago to read and to circulate a number of copies of the UNESCO Statement on Race. I think many people have forgotten its existence. It was published in July, 1950, as a result of consideration by some twenty eminent sociologists and psychologists. I will not bore your Lordships by reading it, except for one paragraph, which says:
"According to present knowledge, there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics, whether in respect of intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is much the same."
I think there is an active assumption to the opposite effect in the minds of a large number of people in this country, and this is one of the causes of lack of promotion opportunity for people, particularly coloured people. One of the great things that would help to solve the psychological problems is for these people to see more of their number getting promotion. I think more of them are entitled to promotion than achieve it.
There is one point I should like to make and it is a critical one. Many
136
people tend to deal with this problem in terms of good-hearted sentimentalism. I am all for sentiment, but against sentimentalism. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, when she said as others have said more than once in this debate—that we owe a great debt of gratitude to these people for coming here and manning the hospitals, driving tube trains, and so on, I think this is sentimentality. Equally, they owe a debt to us for delivering their bread or building their houses. We all share in the work of the community. We do not owe debts to each other for what each does for the other. I think it is a pity to make these statements, because they can be taken quite literally by some people. The obvious consequence of saying we owe a debt is to acknowledge it by giving them a privileged position. I do not think anybody suggests that. We want to live together with these people as citizens of this country.
I believe this is not a disastrous situation. All three Parties have faced it. In time we can solve it if we limit the number of resident coloured people of this country for a period, until we have learned better how to deal with the situation, until the second generation is emerging, with the growth of insight which is going on now. Let us face it, the growth of insight into this problem in the last ten years has been enormous. Only ten years ago people used to consider this problem in terms of, "I am not going to let my daughter marry a black man", and that sort of thing. One does not hear that any longer. With that growth of insight we shall tackle the problem if we face up to limitation, because it is rapid growth in numbers which might inhibit the solutions which I think are in hand.
7.5 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, you will be relieved to know that I have already torn up two-thirds of my notes. I must apologise at once for the fact that I cannot possibly be here at the end of the debate, and hear the reproofs which possibly I should otherwise have received from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Owing to circumstances over which I have no control, or virtually no control, I must catch a train which will take me away fairly soon. I took the

137
precaution of consulting the Government Whips' Office yesterday and telling them my predicament, and they encouraged me to proceed. No doubt it is difficult always to calculate the number of lengthy speeches. But I apologise if I have to leave your Lordships earlier than I should have wished.
I should like to assure noble Lords on the Front Bench that I have taken serious note of their numerous and avuncular exhortations to keep the whole subject clear of Party political controversy. should not find it difficult, because I am an Independent in politics. There is no Party in favour of which I want to make points. But I should like to congratulate the noble Lords themselves on this remarkable change of heart.
Only the other day I was reading the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT Of the debate on the Act of 1962, and on that occasion some noble Lords were making a series of most searing Party political points on this very subject which they are now saving we must not make controversial points about. That is all right with me, so long as I am not told, whenever I disagree with something said by noble Lords on that Bench, that I am being controversial in not accepting it. It is an astonishing change of heart, one of the most remarkable in my political memory. In general, I think this change of heart is both praiseworthy and natural; praiseworthy because most of us can remember occasions when we should have been very glad to eat our own words, but shrank from doing so, and natural because most Labour Members of another place represent towns, and therefore will have much more opportunity of seeing at first hand the grim new slums, and the insoluble problems which they are inevitably breeding, than, say, a Conservative Member for one of the hunting shires.
I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury (who has again disappeared), made an observation which was almost a repetition of something said by one right reverend Prelate when we last discussed the subject. He said that there is something eminently fitting in the Metropolis of a multiracial Commonwealth being itself multiracial. With the deepest respect to the Bishops' Bench, and also to the absent Baroness, that seems to me to be a mere play on words, meaning
138
little or nothing. The British Commonwealth is not multiracial, in the sense in which Britain is becoming multiracial, so that in Birmingham, for example, a leaflet on overcrowding has recently been issued in thirteen different languages. The British Commonwealth does not consist of a number of nations each containing large numbers of different races, coloured and white. What it does consist of overwhelmingly is a number of coloured nations which admit to permanent residence the most diminutive number of whites, and a number of white nations which admit to permanent residence the most diminutive number of coloured, or none at all. That is surely not the sort of multiracial character which Britain is rapidly assuming.
What I wish to stress, in the few moments I shall trouble your Lordships, is that there is so much about this present situation which nobody knows and nobody has any means of knowing; and that seems to me extremely dangerous. It may well be that the situation is far more urgent and acute than we even suppose it to be. It is ridiculous to realise this, but we do not know even how many Afro-Asian immigrants there are at present here. Until last October it was generally accepted that the most reliable estimate was 500,000. In October, the Government put it at 800,000. In January, The Times newspaper published its series on "the Dark Million", and personally, I suspect that one million is an under-estimate. But we do not know.
Nor do we know how many are going to come this year or next year, or the year after that. The noble Lord can tell us there will be a quota of 20,000, but that is reckoning only for voucher-holders. He cannot possibly know how many dependants are going to follow each voucher-holder. Still less, probably, can he tell us how many illicit entrants are going to prise their way through the back doors which have been forced open by the racketeers of three Continents.
We do not know the birthrate of the coloured immigrants in this country: there are no separate statistics. That is an important aspect of the problem. All we have are isolated shafts of light on local conditions. We know, for

139
example, that 70 per cent. of the maternity beds in Willesden were recently occupied by immigrant mothers. But we do not know what the birthrate here is going to be. We know only that it is high in most of their native countries. We do not know, because there are no separate statistics, how many of them are receiving National Assistance. We believe that there are but few; but we do not really know.
It is much the same with health—no adequate Government picture, only shafts of isolated light thrown on isolated local conditions. We have, for example, the President of the British Tuberculosis Association telling us that investigations in Birmingham, Wolverhampton and a number of other large towns, have confirmed an incidence of tuberculosis among Asians at 25 times that of our native citizens; or the Medical Officer of Health of Bradford putting the incidence there at from 13 to 30 times the native rate. We suddenly learn, almost by chance, if we happen to read the Press, that a survey of 150 venereal disease clinics has shown that 52·8 per cent. of all their male patients are immigrants. We hear Professor Malgraith, the Dean of the School of Tropical Medicine, emphasising that new tropical diseases are coming in, often without being diagnosed, until they become a danger to the community.
Least of all, with all these uncertainties, are we in a position to assess the industrial and financial balance sheet of the immigrants. Admittedly, we know that we are getting invaluable help in the hospitals and in medicine; although it is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, pointed out when we last discussed this subject, that these are just the people whom their own ill-supplied countries most need at home.
We know that the immigrants are taking over a large number, though by no means all, of the harder and lower-paid types of labour. Here, I am afraid, we are re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire which in its years of decadence used to import subject races to do its dirty work for it. But what nobody knows, and what nobody can know, so far as I can see, is what is the long-term cost, in social services alone, of importing one man to do a job, plus
140
perhaps two, three or four dependants, who will live here permanently and their descendants after them, as compared with the practice in other countries—for example, in West Germany—where workers work on a much more temporary basis. On a reckoning last October it looked as if 61 per cent. of them were there for less than two years, and they have far fewer dependants. The reckoning last October was that the proportion of dependants there was less than half those of our own immigrants.
Nobody knows what the effect on our balance of payments may be of home remittances from the immigrants, or of the purchase of additional food from overseas. Nobody knows what the effect of abundant cheap labour on slowing down automation may be; or, when automation does, belatedly, dispense with a great deal of underpaid labour, and we get a great deal of unemployment, what will happen when we hear the familiar cry, "Last in first out!" Nobody knows how many new towns will have to be built, in view of our own population explosion, on our fast vanishing countryside.
But although there is such a lot that we do not know, there are one or two things that we do know. We do surely know that we are breeding insoluble or—let us not be pessimistic—profoundly difficult problems for our children and our grandchildren. We do know that one million immigrants to-day, plus their dependants, plus the "black market" entries, plus the offspring of all of them, must slowly, but inevitably and profoundly, alter the character of Britain. And we also know, or ought to know, that this prospect causes profound concern and distress to a great many ordinary people, or indeed, in political terms, I believe, to a majority of the electorate.
Your Lordships may recall that as long ago as last summer a public opinion poll reported that a majority of voters in all Parties was in favour of stricter controls, while of the substantial minority, which even then was in favour of some sort of prohibition, a majority came from the Labour Party. Since then, there has been evidence of growing public concern which I forbear to mention. But I have been recently greatly struck by an experience of my own. Just over a fortnight ago—to be exact, a fortnight last

141
Monday—I wrote a letter which was published in the Daily Telegraph, in the course of which I used words which The Times newspaper had recently ascribed to an unnamed Labour Minister:
"Everyone in British politics knows in his hones that there will have to be a ban, whether temporary or otherwise."
Let me say here that I should be perfectly ready to substitute for the word "ban" the words "limitation on residents", as suggested by the noble and learned Viscount who moved the Motion, because if the limitation on residents were to be at a reasonable figure it would have much the same effect.
That letter was published over a fortnight ago, and since then not a single post has passed without my receiving a number of letters of comment from the public. I have not been able to count them all, but I was foolish enough to set out to acknowledge them all, and I know that I had to answer 27 by one post alone. Every one has been in favour of my proposition—indeed, passionately in favour. But what has impressed me so deeply is not so much the number of letters, or the fact that they came from all classes and from all parts of the country, as the deep distress obviously felt by many quite ordinary and sensible people who have written; and the fact that, in the minds of so ninny of the writers, the influx of immigrants is closely linked with the emigration of so many of our valuable citizens from this country—1½ million, all told, between the end of the war and the end of 1963. A number of writers quoted examples from their own town or village of citizens who have emigrated because, they say, they feared what Britain may become for their children. My Lords, this may be exaggerated fear, but it is evidently widely felt by perfectly sensible and ordinary citizens.
Last week, Sir Cyril Osborne sought leave to introduce a Bill into another place. Although the Bill perhaps did not go so far as the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, it would at any rate greatly have increased the strictness of our controls over immigration. I was interested to see that the Leader of the Conservative Party, and several of his Cabinet colleagues, voted in favour of giving leave to introduce the Bill. I presume, therefore, that in
142
any future Election the Conservative Party will include in its manifesto proposals at least as drastic as those which were outlined in the proposal for Sir Cyril Osborne's Bill. As I said before, I am Independent and have not the slightest desire to see the migration issue become a weapon of offence in the Party dogfight. What I still hope to see is both Parties agreeing to what I am convinced a majority of the electorate is more than impatient for: that is, what previously I would have called prohibition, at any rate for a time, but what now, following the noble Viscount, I should be prepared to call a reasonable limitation on residents. I am convinced that whichever Party includes this in its programme at the next Election will win the Election if the other Party has not included it. But how much better for all concerned, including the immigrants already here, if both do!
7.20 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to join with others in thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne for introducing this debate. When I decided to speak I expressed the hope that I should speak after my old friend Lord Elton, because he is one of the very few people who has been continuously putting before the public a view which I believe to be right. I did not know how many would support him, but I certainly meant to do so.
I expresed my views on these great issues in the debate on December I last year, and I have no intention of repeating even the main arguments which I then put forward. I concluded with an expression of opinion which I still hold, that the ordinary electors in this country are showing themselves far wiser than any political Party. I believe that still to be true, though I am glad to say that all political Parties are moving in the right direction. The two speeches with which I found myself in the greatest agreement were the admirable maiden speech of my noble friend Lord St. Helens, which was immediately followed by a fascinating and wise speech by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Birmingham. If I may say it, in passing, I did not think that his speech, to most of us, was capable of the misunderstanding which it apparently encountered from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.

143
I confess that I was rather depressed by a good number of other things said in the debate. I was nearly very much depressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when there suddenly occurred a sentence with which I found myself in such great agreement that I had a hope that perhaps I was being harsh to him on some of the other things. He said towards the end of his speech—I cannot quote him exactly but I think the sentence was to this effect—that the Government had every intention of limiting immigration to what we could assimilate. That seemed to me a most encouraging sentence. I was not quite clear whether he thought they would have that power under existing legislation, or whether it was a promise that they would, if need be, introduce other legislation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made the position perfectly clear, namely, that the Government intend to give the new arrangements with regard to evasion a fair trial. If we then find that they are ineffective, we shall have to look at the matter again and may have to ask for other powers.
LORD CONESFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that matter clear. It enables me to say that I think my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne was right in demanding earlier legislation. Whatever may be the opinion on whether it is necessary to limit the total number of people entering this country for residence, whatever the necessity may be at the present moment, I think that most thoughtful people in this House, in another place, and I am certain in the country, think that the power to limit numbers is one which the Government of this country ought to possess. I was greatly relieved, having listened with increasing depression to the debate (with the exception of the two speeches to which I have already referred and the proposals of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne), and delighted by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who specifically said that he agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and then proceeded to attack the one speech which really depressed me, the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury.
I did not expect that I was going to be depressed by her speech. I have often
144
listened to her with the greatest pleasure. I have, on other occasions, admired her oratory, and I was very sorry that she quoted her most distinguished father, whom I had so much admired when I first took an interest in politics, on the one statement that I always thought to be wholly untenable; that there was something peculiarly wrong about negative action. If you are stopping a folly, there is nothing to be said against the action on the ground that it is negative. Apparently, if you are a Liberal and see a fire engine engaged in putting out a fire in a building, you say "Stop" to the fire engine, "your action is purely negative and contemptible". We must get away from this ridiculous idea that, if an action is wise, it is to be condemned because it is negative. A negative action may be precisely what is most required.
The noble Lady never mentioned what I thought was the clearest and most relevant fact in this whole problem, namely, that this Island is about the most overcrowded place in the whole world. Noble Lord after noble Lord has got up and shown the importance of this problem of immigration to such problems as housing, education and public order; that every one of those problems will become worse and may even become insoluble if we continue immigration for the purpose of residence at anything like its recent pace. That proposition is either true or false, but there is nothing wicked about believing it.
We should try to find out what is the truth about this problem. It is much more important to find out what is the truth about it than to get every political Party to agree on an untruth. People talk about taking the matter out of politics and say how glorious it is when three members of three different Parties all agree to take the matter out of politics—without anybody inquiring whether those three members have got the right solution to the problem. But, my Lords, that is something that really matters. Have they got the right solution to the problem? If they have not, this all-Party agreement to take the matter out of politics becomes mischievous nonsense, and it does something worse in a democracy; it means that those electors who have to face the problem in their daily lives despair of the conduct of the political Parties and of their representatives. Nothing, I think, has done more harm on this issue than

145
the abuse heaped on such places as Smethwick and Birmingham, and other places, where the electors were greatly concerned because they knew the problem at first hand.
I have said in the earlier debate as I say now; of course I should like to see this problem, as so many other problems, outside Party politics. But I want to see it outside Party politics only if the Parties agree on something which I regard as wise. Fortunately, they do sometimes in this particular problem. As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, and as I am glad to say the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, we are all agreed and have long been agreed on absolutely humane and equal treatment to any immigrant, no matter what his race, who is accepted for residence in this country, and there must be no such thing as a second-class citizen.
The noble Lady who spoke from the Cross-Benches said what a pity it was that anybody had mentioned second-class citizens, but as everybody who did so in every quarter did it only in order to say that he was wholly against the idea, I do not quite know what her complaint was. It is something on which we are all absolutely agreed. I should like to think that we could agree on a further mailer, but unfortunately we cannot, and that is that it is important what are the total numbers, if we are not to have immigration at such a pace as to make every problem almost insoluble. I think the Government realise that that may come and I have little doubt, if they live as a Government long enough, that we shall see them in due course bringing in the legislation to give them the necessary powers, though I think they should bring it in at quite an early date. I know it is no use putting it to those Sunday papers which take a high moral line, or to some of the other weeklies, but really we do not much advance matters when we attack any conviction of anybody with whom we differ by calling it racial prejudice. My Lords, we really do not take things any further.
I said in the earlier debate that, though I believed I had no racial prejudice, I did not know, because I never know how one finds out whether or not one has a prejudice. I ventured, as some of your
146
Lordships may remember, to quote the well-known saying of my friend Lord Hewart, the former Lord Chief Justice:
"The only impartiality possible to the human mind is that which arises from understanding neither side of the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 261 (No. 15), col. 1041, December 1, 1964.]
I have never sought that particular impartiality, and I do not know whether or not I suffer from racial prejudice, but I am giving my honest opinion that I do not think I do, but I may be quite wrong. But I also agree with that great Liberal whom I quoted on the last occasion, Madariaga, whose letter to The Times showed that he thought there was nothing whatsoever improper in a European country wishing to keep itself white.
I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about the nonsense that is being talked when it is said that, because there are many countries in the British Commonwealth of all colours and races, therefore every single unit has got to be multiracial. But of course it does not follow at all. I have forgotten the exact quotation about the need to be free if you rule over freemen, but I always remember Johnson's parody that you might just as well say, "Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat". It does not follow. I agree, of course, that there are great economic arguments in favour of some of this immigration, but as I said before, economic arguments, though important, must not be pursued to the exclusion of everything else.
I have already spoken for longer than I intended, but I want to impress upon the House what I regard as the most important thing of all. If we go on as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has pointed out, and as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, to neglect these problems, they will become insoluble. To recognise them in time and to take adequate steps to deal with them is not in the least illiberal, and we ought to try to credit our opponents with reasonable political honesty, and, when we differ from them on this issue, not think that we can get away with it by simply denouncing their convictions, their honest convictions, as racial prejudice.
7.38 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am at least consistent, like my noble friend Lord Elton, on this subject, for I received

147
the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill with enthusiasm; a great deal more enthusiasm than was shown by many other Members of another place and of your Lordships' House. I think the recent revelations about illegal immigration have deeply shocked the British public. They, who walk tremblingly in their queue past the immigration officers, wondering whether their passports are in order, have now found that, apparently, thousands of people can "pop in" in a quite irregular manner. Moreover, they read in the papers that criminals can also get out.
This has come as rather a shock to people who regard their passports with considerable awe. It does not surprise me a great deal, because anybody with Eastern experience knows that the profiteers in illicit immigration—and that is what they are—are extremely ingenious people, and I have always maintained are likely to make rings round any of our British immigration officials. That is why I have more than once advocated that the Department should be reinforced by people who have served in the Indian Civil Service or the old Indian Police Service, to deal with these particular problems.
It is not so much the immigrant himself who has to be caught; it is the men behind him, the dealers in illicit immigration, the people who make large money out of it. The Government have made a statement and they are going to send a mission abroad to see how the trick is worked. It seems rather a time-consuming purpose. It is worked in numerous traditional Oriental manners, and I do not think anybody is going to be very much more forward when they have found out how it is worked. The whole exercise seems to be not very satisfactory unless, in fact, the people who have entered illicitly are going to be traced and shipped back.
Now the British people are a kindly and benevolent people, and they do not like being called racialists. They are not racialists, and several noble Lords have pointed that out this evening; but their feelings have been bottled up for a very long time for fear of the accusation of being called racialists. Now and for some time they have been very deeply alarmed by the feeling that large communities of a
148
completely different colour and culture are growing up in this country, possibly increasing faster, proliferating faster, that the British people themselves—communities, moreover, which it is impossible to bring within the British tradition and way of life.
I do not understand what this word "integration" means, but the immigrants from the West Indies start with an advantage. As my noble friend Lord St. Helens, in a very interesting maiden speech, pointed out, they come in, mostly knowing English, they are mostly Christian, and, in Latin America, at all events, there has been a mixture of blood between the European stock and the Negro stock. But when we come to dealing with the communities from Asia the position is very different. If they come here, their English is often quite rudimentary, and that of their wives and children nil. They have long traditions of communal segregation. The Hindus, the Moslems and the Sikhs do not mix in their own country, and never have. The Hindus and the Moslems, as we know, are deeply hostile to each other. The Sikhs were created as a purified sect of the Hindus, and have kept themselves apart ever since. It is quite absurd to think that they are likely to integrate in this country with the British community when they have never, in their own country, integrated with their other Indian communities.
Of course, this is not the only country to which they have migrated. In the past there has been indentured labour going from the Indian sub-continent to many parts of the world which has stayed there and multiplied and has created racial problems of a most acute kind. These particular communities do not wish to be, and would not allow themselves to he, assimilated into any other community foreign to their own. They remain a community of their own for ever.
My Lords, we can afford small communities of people who are racially segregated within our midst, undoubtedly, but will they be small communities? That is the great problem, and my noble friend Lord Elton devoted a great deal of his speech to that point. In other countries they have frequently increased at a faster rate than the indigenous population and have become the majority, with the results that we have seen in British Guiana, Fiji and, I believe, other

149
countries. Their rate of increase in this country, of course, is purely speculative. It is quite impossible to know at what rate an Oriental community, lifted into an Occidental climate and culture, will increase; but, if the traditional fecundity of the East, abetted by Western hygiene and medicine and encouraged by family allowances and other benefits of the Welfare State, were to exercise its full influence, then the increase might be very rapid indeed—and that, we must remember, of communities which for centuries have held a completely different outlook on life from that of the British.
My Lords, we cannot deny that valuable work is being done by the immigrants in our country, but, at the same time, we must not deny that in many respects it has helped us to push aside the problem of modernisation, which in fact means to cease employing four people to do three people's job. Manufacturers may get their labour and London Transport its staff, but they do so at a very heavy cost put upon the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the country, and they do so to the detriment of the housing and education of our own people. I personally wonder whether there is any chance of malaria being reintroduced into this country through the presence of so many people who probably have the malarial microbe in their blood. Because Britain used to be a malarious place. We are an overcrowded island, and the demand for all forms of public service is seriously outstripping our ability to provide it. Furthermore, we face a considerable increase in population when the bulge passing out of our schools begins to settle down and marry.
In all these circumstances, I have not the least doubt that the vast majority of the British people would like, if possible, to see the tap turned right off and the coloured immigration confined to students and other temporary residents. If we need further supplies of labour—and I very much doubt whether we really do—it could be supplied by people on temporary permits from Commonwealth or European sources. But the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, admitted that there is one frightful shadow overhanging us, and that is the dependants of the present immigrants, who apparently have an absolute right to come to this country and whom nobody can stop. I tried to
150
discover from him what the estimated number was, but he was unable or unwilling to give me a figure. But when I say that it looks as if it might run into seven figures, it makes one realise that the problem is a very serious one.
Of course, as regards those people here, all decent people would say that those who conform to British standards of behaviour must be treated in every way as British citizens, with full rights, privileges and everything else; but this does not mean that we must be soft. The by-laws and housing regulations must be enforced; and our large cities would be well advised to try to get on their staffs, if only for advisory purposes, ex-members of the Indian Civil Service or Indian Police Service who spent long years in India and who are well versed in the outlook and habits of the various castes and sects of Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs who have come to live in their great cities. And, of course, these people would be particularly likely to deal with the iniquities of the landlords of those races who set up here in this very profitable business of letting rooms to their fellow countrymen.
Finally, I would say that the sentimentalists will object to tackling this problem with vigour, but I think they must rest assured that the vast problem of dealing with Oriental poverty, where one is dealing with a surplus population of at least 100 million humans and tens of millions unproductive cattle, will not be solved by taking a few hundred thousands into British industry. It is a religious, agricultural and engineering problem with which we can help; but the problem must be solved, if it can be solved at all, in the Indian sub-continent.
7.50 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it is not my intention to throw anything into the main stream of this debate, although, indeed, the current at the moment is not very fast. Nevertheless, I hope to drop a twig or two into the eddies, hoping that they will not be cast up upon the bank. I am confident in this hope because they are rather technical twigs. First of all, as a member of the Migration Board, which is a rather frustrated body because, as your Lordships may not be aware, its examination of the affair has been confined to that of emigration, I have one or two points to make. Other

151
noble Lords have spoken of the value of trained immigrants, and I particularly recall what the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, said in his attractive and well-informed maiden speech.
In the Migration Board's last full report the following words appear:
"We hope that it will not be for much longer that the United Kingdom will remain the only major country of both emigration and immigration which cannot produce complete and adequate statistics of its own two-way migration movements."
Later on it says:
"… we have long held the view that both in assessing the impact of emigration upon our manpower resources and in considering questions of emigration policy, we must take into account the volume and pattern of our immigration."
"Pattern" is the word that I would emphasise and on which I wish to concentrate at the moment, because in his Chairman's introduction to the Report, dated December, 1964, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes said:
"The Board has for many years protested at the lack of information about those emigrants, including a high proportion of qualified professional and scientific personnel, who travel by air, which resulted from the fact that only those travelling by sea were required to fill in cards. The Board now await with keen interest the results of the 7 per cent. sample of passengers, leaving by air and by sea, which has been in operation since the beginning of 1964."
His reference there is, of course, to the fact that only carriers by sea made returns, with the result that many of the figures that noble Lords may or may not study in the Migration Board returns are manifestly faulty. Take, for instance, the figures for Canadian migration. The British figure is some 9,000; whereas, if I remember rightly, the Canadian figure, taken from their own statistics, is something like double that.
The first "twig" that I wish to drop is an appeal to the authorities to provide that arrangements are made for proper statistics, two-way statistics, for both emigration and immigration. The last Government were quite wrong, in my opinion, not to take the powers they could have taken to compel the air carriers to record statistics in the same way as did the shipping companies. If this had been done, the authorities now would have much surer ground upon which to work. Perhaps that is one more
152
reason why immigration should be taken out of politics. I welcome the idea of the mission which the Government propose; but hope that no time will be lost in ensuring that, in carrying out their work, adequate statistics, not merely of numbers but also of pattern, should at the same time be collected. Incidentally, in listening to the debate I feel that one of the widest loopholes for evasion of immigration regulations used to be the use of short flights from Europe or Ireland to complete long hauls; and that is a subject which might be looked into.
My Lords, I have another twig. The figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, yesterday were very striking, particularly the large numbers for Australia, Canada and New Zealand—some 10,000—in one month. I imagine that only a small proportion of these are really migrants who are changing their country of permanent residence. Would it not, therefore, be possible and wise to consider whether our definition of a migrant which, in so far as an emigrant is concerned, is one who is going abroad for more than a year, is the right one? Because it means, as Mr. Cledwyn Hughes mentioned in the passage I have just read, that the technicians, the professional people, the businessmen, the engineers and the erectors who go abroad for contracts exceeding one year are classed as emigrants; which they are probably not. How is it possible to take a balanced view of the two-way flow of trained personnel if the statistics are in this way misleading?
Incidentally, speaking as a Scotsman, it is interesting to note that except perhaps in the case of Glasgow the problems which beset England are not pronounced. Perhaps our climate is responsible for this. But it leads me to suggest, as I have done before, that the Scotland-Canada air traffic figures (and these will have some connection with the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, yesterday) is of a peculiar nature and, in terms of statistics as to pattern, may well warrant study.
One last twig, my Lords. I met a wise and experienced old friend this morning who spent many years in India and Pakistan, and he suggested that more might be done to knit the Commonwealth together if we could encourage Commonwealth citizens to come here and work

153
here for specific periods, say, of three years (and he referred especially to citizens of India and Pakistan) and then to return to their own countries. His object, with which I agree, is to encourage this two-way flow which certainly exists as between this country and Australia; and this is borne out by the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am certain that large numbers come here for more than a year, perhaps for two or three, but go back; and by going back they serve to knit together the Commonwealth, which is something that noble Lords on all sides of the House would wish to see. Could such an arrangement be at least borne in mind by the mission in their consideration of the subject to which they are going to address themselves? Perhaps they could look into this.
Before closing, may I say that I was reminded by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, of the interesting impression one gets in Western North America, of the strong Sikh community in British Columbia and of the Chinese and Japanese communities in California. I hesitate to use the word "integration", because I do not quite know, just as many other noble Lords do not know, what it means; but it is a striking thing to see for instance, in San Francisco the way in which these communities seem to keep themselves separate while they live side by side. I know that I am right in saying that there is not a better-behaved community in the United States, or one with a higher reputation, than the Chinese community in San Francisco. I had not intended to speak for so long, and I apologise for having been prevented from attending the first few minutes of the debate. I only hope, that I have been able to add to the sum total of your Lordships' deliberations on this matter and that my twigs will not be cast up upon the shingle.
8.1 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, over the past year or two I have taken part frequently in debates in your Lordships' House on this subject, and I have been an unswerving advocate of strict control of immigration. I am to-day more than ever convinced that what has become mass immigration should be stopped at once and reduced to a very limited number, so as to give us a chance of dealing with the problems as they already
154
exist, without aggravating them to the point of real disaster by taking no effectively restrictive action.
At this late hour I should like to say a few words on the broad principles behind this policy of encouraging members of the Commonwealth to come to this country and attempt to be assimilated into its life. We are discussing to-day one of the most intractable social problems this country has ever had to deal with, but it is not a peculiarly British problem. It is only our example of a world problem—that of the stranger within the gates, who has been allowed to come in, driven by adversity or compelled by poverty and lack of opportunities in his home country, and attracted, in our case, by the advantages of a wealthy Welfare State. All over the world is present this problem of international, inter-tribal maladjustment, accompanied by suspicion and dislike of those whose traditions, whose gods, whose standards of value, whose mode of life, conflict with those of the country of their adoption. In our case, the problem of the immigrant has become almost inextricably mixed with the colour question, because inevitably the bulk of would-be immigrants to this country from the Commonwealth are people of a different colour and so racially distinct, though I maintain that the problem is not essentially or fundamentally a colour problem at all.
We have allowed the problem to become acute in this country by letting the situation drift. The old Imperial idea that the doors of the Mother Country should stand wide open to welcome fellow members of the Commonwealth was no doubt a beautiful theory, and its dire results became obvious only when the membership of the Commonwealth expanded and multiplied and included millions of men of alien tradition and culture and ways of life, when communications improved to such an extent and made entry so easy that the theory became a practice, and we woke to the idea that a negligible influx was becoming an uncontrollable flood.
The brotherhood of man as a basic principle of justice and individual dignity, embodying the right of fair treatment and the absence of oppression, is a laudable aim, but the belief that tribes and nations and societies are interchangeable is dangerous nonsense, to

155
my mind, certainly until human nature has shed some of its present outstanding characteristics. Premature social mixtures on a large and indiscrminate scale have an unpleasant habit of becoming explosive.
My excuse for these preliminary generalities is that I have lived my life all over the world in close contact with the problems of social incongruity. I have friends of all races and colours and I claim to have no colour prejudice, but I do not disguise from myself that I have social prejudices. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the man who claims he has none of these is, probably unconsciously, not telling the truth. We all prefer to live in a society whose members have fundamentally a similar set of values. I suppose that every society has indigestible members, but that is no reason at all why it should court an increase of indigestion so great as to destroy its own health. I have seen this problem growing intense and finally bursting into disorder all over the world. I could quote—but I will not at this time—many instances of this problem in many countries that I have known, and I have seen something of the great difficulties of dealing with it, however honest might be one's motives.
To come back to the problem that confronts this country to-day, there is no need for me to restate the different facets—housing, health, education and racial discrimination. I regret that the Motion moved in another place recently was rejected. Noble Lords are no doubt familiar with the terms of that Motion, which, it seemed to me, summarised the necessary action. I am not sure that it did not summarise a similar approach to the problem, which the Prime Minister himself seems now to be inclined to take. But such action would have cleared the way for immediate constructive action in improving the position and opportunities of those immigrants who are already citizens of this country.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when the noble Lord speaks of a Motion which was considered in another place recently, is he referring to the Motion asking leave to introduce a Bill, and is he in full agreement with this?
LORD MILVERTON: Yes, my Lords, that was the reference. As I was saying, such action would have cleared the way for immediate constructive action in improving the position and opportunities of those immigrants who are already citizens of this country. One hears much about the need to prevent them and their children from becoming a grade of second-class citizens. I agree with that entirely, in principle. But surely the way to prevent making it quite certain that such a grade will be formed is to stop at the source the entry of men and women who are doomed by their ethnic and social background to become such a class.
You can go on saying that you will not have anything but first-class citizens, and you can call many of these immigrants first-class citizens and say they are welcome here, as such, until you are black in the face, but it does not alter the fact that circumstances will inevitably put them in the position in this country, however much you wish to avoid it, of being second-class citizens. I am not talking of the skilled workers, of course, or of those in hospitals, and in the transport and other industries, who have rendered great service. But the trouble does not come from those. As has been said, in the course of their work they are spread over the country, and they do not tend, as the unskilled workers do, to coalesce in unmanageable groups in different localities.
I was much impressed by the sincerity of an article in The Times of Tuesday of this week in which the author constructively dealt with "four ways to adjust to immigration". He wanted special treatment in housing and education, and proposed to spend large sums—to be provided by the Government—in giving special facilities. But while, obviously, special attention will have to be given to these two problems, the greatest care, as I think has been indicated by another speaker to-night, will have to be taken to avoid just resentment of local population against what they could regard as a pampered class of immigrants. The creation of a pampered élite of foreigners in this country is no way to eliminate racial feelings: on the contrary, it would probably encourage them.
I emphatically agree with that author's proposals about closer medical scrutiny

157
when, and if, immigrants are permitted to enter this country; and I also agree that one cannot effectively suppress racial discrimination by the passage of laws against it. We had all that out in a debate in this House not long go. Only by education and time can one hope to succeed in that object. I therefore view without much enthusiasm the intention of the Government to bring in such legislation.
I disagree entirely with the tendency to regard the solution to present difficulties as lying in an improvement—at vast expense—in the mechanics of absorption or integration, or whatever you like to call the process of turning immigrants into Englishmen in mind and deed. I question very much the wisdom of trying to make this overcrowded country into what another correspondent in The Times has called "the destined receptacle of overseas population surpluses".
My Lords, the moral debt that we owe to the underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth is to help them in every way within our means to make their own countries attractive places to live in and prosper in; to take our prosperity to them, rather than to invite them to bring their deficiencies to us. I was glad to read the Prime Minister's statement about measures to be taken to ascertain the facts, and the setting up of a Mission to study the possibility of control at the source in Commonwealth countries. It is only too true that the facts of this situation have not been sufficiently studied on a sufficiently broad basis, and I welcome the hope that that will be done now.
I would conclude by adding my own humble voice to those who appeal for a national bipartisan approach to this question. I believe that there is widespread apprehension in this country lest it become a political Party issue, and so evade being finally dealt with without any bitterness and without any sense that this national approach is the right one, and one on which we hope there will be agreement, whatever measures may finally be taken. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in his denunciation of the idea of this bipartisan approach, this non-political attitude. Inevitably, if it became a Party issue, the final benefits of a solution would be damaged. This, I think, was the approach which the noble Lord,
158
Lord Stonham, tried to make in our debate of some weeks ago. Charity still begins at home. I consider that only so can we be true to the old principle of the dual mandate—the principle of Lord Lugard in dealing with countries of the Commonwealth; that is, to put the interests of our own country first and, by strengthening it in that way, make it better fitted to serve mankind.
8.18 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this has been an interesting, important, and, so far as I am concerned, very largely an encouraging debate, though I have had certain disappointments which I shall mention later. I think the first encouragement is that the Labour Party have come so far and changed their ground so much since they so fiercely opposed the original Bill. Whether the Liberal Party have moved at all I was unable to discover from the speech of the noble Baroness; and as there are no Liberals here now (no Liberal, apparently, takes sufficient interest in the subject to wait until the end of the debate) I think I can leave it at that.
I should like to start what I have to say (and I will make it as short as possible, as it is rather late) by dealing with one point that has not yet, I think, been mentioned in regard to the Prime Minister's Statement which he made yesterday. I would say straight away that it is a statement which we welcome in its general outline. But the Prime Minister has said repeatedly in the last year or two that one of the reasons why the Labour Party opposed the Bill so violently was that there had not been adequate consultation beforehand. I raise this question now because of the Commission which is being set up to go abroad and consult, and not simply to raise old history. I think I must get the picture right about this. The idea that there had not been adequate consultation was, I think, a Liberal one, and it was taken up in the other place by the Labour Party—I think it was originally put forward by Mr. Grimond. The true story is this. Consultations with our Commonwealth friends have been going on certainly since as long ago as 1954—and, I strongly suspect, since considerably earlier than that on a semiofficial basis—about this difficulty of Commonwealth immigration to this country.

159
I would remind your Lordships what happened when the Bill was brought in. There were three countries principally involved because of the number of immigrants from them, and they were the same three parts of the world which are principally concerned now—India, Pakistan and the West Indies. I would remind your Lordships what the position was then. Both India and Pakistan had tried to operate some form of control from their end. It did not work; it collapsed. I think it is quite natural that it should have collapsed, as I shall show in a moment. But the West Indies flatly refused to undertake any control themselves, or to help at all. When Her Majesty's Government are thinking about these consultations, I would remind them of what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, that the propaganda in the West Indies against immigration control by this country is still going on.
The reason why I mention it is this. It was made clear by the noble Earl the Leader of the House yesterday, in answer to a supplementary question on the Prime Minister's Statement, that this Commission is going abroad, not only to consult about evasion of our laws, but also to go into the whole general subject. I would say to the Government, and to your Lordships, that apart from evasion—I do not know what can be done at the other end about that—quite frankly I do not think that there is much hope of the other countries, with the best will in the world, being able to do much to control our immigration problem, though I am all for Her Majesty's Government trying. The point is that this is our problem. They are our laws; they are our regulations. If some other country said to us, "You are sending us rather more people at a time than we like. We should like to control it. Will you do a lot of work your end to see that they do not come?", I think our answer would be, "We will tell them what the circumstances are, what permits they must have, but we are really not going to do your job for you."
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at this point? I do not want to go back into the question of consultation or anything like that. I think the position in 1962, and the stand the Labour Party took at that time, was
160
clearly known. It does not matter now. We are concerned with the future and the present. But with regard to the Commission, I think it is important that cold water should not be thrown on the idea. We are certain that in many respects we have already had, and will receive, the full co-operation of the Commonwealth Governments concerned. It is not only a question of carrying out our laws. There are many aspects of this situation where it is in their interests to co-operate with us to ensure that what some of us would regard as personal tragedies do not happen, and that they are, as it were, settled at the source. The Commission can do many things of that kind.
LORD DERWENT: I am not saying that they are not going to try to help Commonwealth Governments; I am saying that I do not think they will be able to help very much, because it is our problem and not theirs, and the action must be taken this end by the Government.
The only other thing about which I am a little worried is that the Commission will be used, or might be used, by Her Majesty's Government to delay taking a decision, a decision which I believe is very urgent. I will not go further than that, but I hope that will not be the case.
May I say a word about integration, absorption, assimilation, or whatever we may like to call it? I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, rather indicated that my noble and learned friend had really not said anything much about integration. He did not go into much detail, but he started his speech by saying that this was the most important thing of all. I should like to make it quite clear that that was said. We know what is causing the basic trouble about integration: too many people arriving to make integration easy—some people say, to make it possible—and too many people arriving in a short space of time. Another reason, I think, is too many people arriving into too few places.
LORD CHAMPION: Too concentrated.
LORD DERWENT: Too much concentration in certain areas. I welcome the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday that he had appointed Mr. Foley to try to co-ordinate the steps necessary to be taken. I think this is an excellent idea. We know the details

161
of the problems with which he will have to deal. Housing, of course, is always a great problem. Education has been mentioned several times to-day; and the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, made, I think, a very strong point about the language difficulty. That is one of the things which we shall have to try to organise.
The most important thing is, as we all know, that the immigrants have a different way of life. It takes time to absorb people with an entirely different method of living. I do not know whether it is within my province to give advice to Mr. Foley, but I am certain that if he goes ahead with his work, dealing with it partly as a matter of organisation and administration, and partly as a matter of persuasion, he will have all our support, and I hope that he will make a great success of this new job. But if it is done by undue pressure and by giving orders, there will be such a reaction that it will not work at all.
May I, before I come on to other speeches, say a few words about my own views? I had a certain amount to do with this question at the Home Office, and before I criticise I should like to put myself forward so that I can be criticised. I would remind your Lordships that this Act was experimental. There have been some criticisms of the way in which this Act has worked. It might be, as my noble and learned friend has suggested, that if the Opposition had not been quite so virulent the Act would have been better. I do not know that I personally agree with that. But it was bound to be experimental to some extent, because we had never had anything like it before. It has now been working for a few years. During those few years, we repeatedly had to tighten up the controls—such controls as we had—and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has admitted that they have to some extent been tightened up even more lately. In my view, we have reached a stage when we cannot have any tighter official control without further legislation.
Here we come to the point made by my noble and learned friend, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, completely misunderstood. What my noble and learned friend was asking for was that the Government should take powers at an early date—I would prefer to say "now"—to control the total
162
number of immigrants, including families, coming into this country over any one period. He was asking that the Government should take powers. Where I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, went a little adrift was in that he tried to make that sound as if my noble and learned friend had said that this would separate husbands from their families. When the powers are granted, it is entirely a question of elasticity in working those powers.
I know there is the difficulty about the men who are already here, but the Government might set a figure—it does not matter what figure; I am not suggesting what is a proper figure—for a period, be it one or two years, of 100,000 immigrants, including families. Suppose they happen to set that figure. Supposing suddenly an unexpected number of families and dependants came here of people who were already here, it would be quite unnecessary, if the powers were operated properly, to forbid those dependants to come in. It would wreck the notional figure, but the control would be in the hands of the Minister over any one period. I believe that before we can control this question we must have these powers. It is for powers we are asking; the details we are not suggesting.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I just interrupt the noble Lord and get this quite clear, because it is most important? I am not arguing against the noble Lord's general principle; I am not even commenting on it; but the general idea of this debate has been that rather too large numbers of immigrants were coming in, that the net inflow was too great. It has been 60,000 a year for the last two years. Suppose the Government of the day fixed the overall figure for a year at. say, 40,000 or 50,000. If the entitled dependants now overseas exercised their legal right to come, which I understand the noble Lord's Party does not wish to abrogate, then the whole of the quota would be filled up by dependants now overseas and no workers, with or without their dependants, would come in at all. I should like to know whether the noble Lord agrees with that or whether he would extend and make it elastic, because, if so, more immigrants would come in than now.
LORD DERWENT: My noble friend did not discuss details at all; he asked for powers. In so far as powers are

163
concerned, obviously one would have to make a rule when operating this that the dependants of those who are already here when the rule started to operate would have to be admitted. As regards new entrants, if the Government use a realistic figure of what we can absorb quite easily—and this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in a slightly different context and was also made by my noble friend Lord St. Helens—it would be perfectly possible, when a man came in on a work voucher, for example, to have information on what his dependants were and whether they were coming in later, and, if so, how many.
I would suggest that it would operate in this kind of way. Suppose a man came in and said that he had a wife and three children, and that if he liked it here he would send for them, he should count against the total figure straight away as five people. If they went back, five would come off. It is the only method by which the Government and local authorities can look ahead and plan ahead, and that is the sort of idea that was raised by my noble friend Lord St. Helens. It has been suggested that there should be certain powers of repatriation: for example, for illegal entrants. It has been suggested that those who wanted to go back and could not afford it should be paid for. That, as the right reverend Prelate said, would need looking into pretty carefully.
So as not to keep your Lordships too long, may I now refer to one or two of the speeches? We have listened to three very exceptional speeches from people who have not only theoretical knowledge of this question, as is the case with so many noble Lords, but practical experience, more or less on a day-to-day basis; and it is because of that that the speeches were of very great help, I would suggest, to this debate.
May I mention first the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord St. Helens? I was not surprised how good it was, but it was good, and it was extraordinarily helpful. I am certain that we shall hear from him very often in the future, and we shall expect that all his future speeches will be as good as this one. The second speech I would mention in particular is that of the right reverend Prelate, who told me that unfortunately he
164
has had to go back to Birmingham before the end of the debate. Again, a down-to-earth speech from somebody who works daily with this problem, and I hope that the Government will read very carefully what he said. The third speech I would mention was one from a slightly different angle, but just as practical and down-to-earth, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who not only knows this problem at close hand but employs coloured labour. He indicated that sometimes the difficulty is between two different coloured races rather than between white and coloured people in the works. I hope that what he had to say will also be studied very carefully by the Government.
I do not want to keep your Lordships, but I should like to put right what undoubtedly was a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I would just say this about the speech of the noble Lord. This was the part of the debate in which I was profoundly disappointed, because, although he dazzled us with figures, he failed to reply to the speech made by my noble and learned friend. He ignored quite a large part of it. May I take certain of his remarks as they occurred? The first one was not a disagreement, but he was talking about taking things out of Party politics. I do not think that had ever been suggested by my noble and learned friend or by myself. What we said was that, as far as possible, where we could come to agreement, now was the moment to do it, and we would try to come to agreement. I do not think one would ever take this subject out of politics, not even out of Party politics; but it should not be primarily a Party political concern, otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself pointed out, every time we disagreed about detail we should accuse each other of taking part in Party politics. But I think the moment has come when we should be able to work rather more closely together.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, talked about conditions that the Home Secretary intended to impose on various kinds of students, by vouchers or in other ways—anyhow, on new immigrants; but he failed to say how he was going to enforce those conditions. Suppose somebody was allowed in for six months and did not go back; the

165
noble Lord failed to say how one was going to find out, so that the conditions could be enforced. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will be able to say something about this matter, because at the moment it seems to me to be very much in the air.
Of the other speeches, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he had not changed his views about entire opposition to control, but he was prepared to play along now; and I am very glad to hear that. The right reverend Prelate, whose speech I have mentioned, was again misunderstood, and I thought he was extraordinarily clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, said that the right reverend Prelate had said that immigrants brought in a lot of V.D., or words to that effect, and were responsible for a lot of V.D. In fact—and I have his words here—what the right reverend Prelate said was that V.D. was a great problem in Birmingham. He did not go further than that. I should like to put that right in the right reverend Prelate's absence.
Finally, may I repeat that I think the climate is now ripe for at any rate the two major Parties to try to find points of agreement rather than points of disagreement, as has sometimes been the case in the past. I would ask Her Majesty's Government again to take the powers without which I maintain they cannot do their job properly: that is, to control the total number of immigrants coming in at any one period. The country is in favour of a firm step of some kind, for some form of control. I know that it is fashionable among certain politicians to raise the parrot cry that because we in Parliament should lead the country, we should not follow; but even noble Lords opposite will probably agree that it is quite pleasant, when one has a policy, to have the country behind one. I beg the Government not to delay in taking the necessary steps. This integration and immigration question is at the moment a very difficult one. If it is left much longer without proper control, it could be extremely explosive.
8.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this has been a long but very interesting debate on a question of importance to our children, and perhaps of rather more importance to their
166
children, because the fact is that the actions, or rather the inaction, of the last two Administrations means that neither our children nor their children will ever see the England which we have been used to seeing, because for good or ill England has become a multiracial society. This, of course, gives rise to grave problems, and it is no use, I think, seeking to deny that there are grave problems. They are not problems on which I intend to speak for long, partly because it has been a long debate, partly because I think all the points raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, have already been answered and there is no point in answering them again, and partly because I am anxious not to do anything to contribute to Party differences. I agree very strongly with those who have pleaded that as far as possible this should be lifted out of Party politics.
In pointing out that this great change, which is inevitably here to stay in our country, came about by inaction of the last two Administrations, may I say, for the purposes of this discussion, that I am quite prepared to assume that any other Government would have done exactly the same? I am not seeking to make a Party point; but the fact is that, having done nothing at all on this subject for years, in 1962 the Government suddenly woke up to the fact that immigration was then running at about 190,000 a year and that it was really too late to do anything to stop our becoming a permanently multiracial society.
There are, I suggest, two separate problems. The first problem is what ought our national immigration policy to be; do we need more or less; are we allowing in the right kind of people? And the second, which is really quite a different question, is what should we do to try as far as we can to integrate or assimilate those who are already here into our community. On the first question as to our national immigration policy, there is, I suppose, no doubt that one of the reasons why in France and Germany and Holland their economies have gone ahead of recent years faster than ours is precisely because they have allowed in a substantially higher proportion of immigrants than we have.

167
Broadly speaking, there is obviously, in the less developed countries, unemployment and an economy which cannot support all the people they have got, while in the developed countries there is all-round great shortages of labour; and when one bears in mind that 40 per cent. of all our hospital doctors up to consultant status are coloured, 15 per cent. of all our student nurses are coloured, about a third of all the employees in some woollen mills are coloured, that many rubber factories are largely staffed with coloured labour, and that up to 90 per cent. of those seeking employment as labourers, packers and public cleansing men are immigrants, whether Irish or coloured, we realise how much we need them. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Brown, that we should give up saying whether we are conferring a great favour on them or they are conferring a great favour on us. It suits us both; they get a higher living standard and we get the labour we badly need.
As to our national immigration policy, it may well be that this has never received any scientific inquiry or sufficient thought as to what is the number which we need from year to year, or whether, for that matter, we want to reverse the policy and try to get rid of people; but at the moment it has come down to about 60,000 a year. Nobody has actually said in the debate that this is too many or what they consider the number ought to be. "C" vouchers have virtually stopped. Those who come in are either on "A" vouchers—men for whom particular employers have asked for a particular job—or "B" vouchers; that is to say, doctors, nurses, teachers or people for whose services we have a particular demand. And nobody in the debate has said that 60,000 ought to be 50,000, or that we are admitting not enough doctors and too many nurses. And why, in those circumstances, we need immediate legislation I have not been able to understand, if it is conceded that these are about right.
As we all know, those who are already here have a right to send for their wives and children. But again there has been no dispute as to the correctness of this state of affairs. Nobody has suggested that we should try to part them from their wives and children; and no case, I
168
suggest, has been found for any immediate legislation to try to stop these people from coming in.
Then it is said that there should be legislation to stop evasion. Nobody, if I may say so, admires more than I do the facility of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for asking questions—and he asked a great many questions about what is happening in the field of evasion. I hope that he will not feel I am discourteous if I suggest that it is a pity he did not ask himself the same questions between July, 1962, and October, 1964, because nobody suggests that there has been more evasion in the last three or four months than there was before. The only difference is that the previous Administration kept it quiet, while the present Government have frankly told everybody of the degree of evasion that there is and what steps they are taking to stop it. The sensible thing to do, I suggest, is to see how far the steps being taken are effective. I have no doubt, for example, that the sending out of the mission to the Commonwealth countries from which immigrants come will itself assist in the prevention of evasion.
I confess to being more interested in the second problem, that of how we are to integrate or assimilate into the population, so far as possible, those who are here; and this is, I think, a difficult question indeed. To start with, as we know, in a proportion of cases, there is, for example, a greater degree of tuberculosis among immigrants. Here again, this is not something that suddenly started after all the immigration that has gone on in the last ten years; this is not something that started in October. But, for the first time, steps are being taken to deal with it.
We have now what we had not before October, X-ray plant at Heathrow where most of these people arrive. Medical officers of health are advised of their arrival. The immigrants are given notices in their own language advising them to get in touch with their doctors, and the local doctors are sent their names and addresses. Here again, the mission going out to Commonwealth countries from which they come should, I believe, be of substantial help. If arrangements can be made for at least some medical examination in the countries from which

169
they come, if they are suspected of being tubercular, it makes much more sense to do the X-ray there and not let them come, rather than let them come and do it here.
With regard to housing, of course I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, that housing is the main part of the trouble. One can well understand those who are not very educated saying, quite naturally: "There is that black man in that house. If he were not here I should have a house." In a sense, it is perhaps not unnatural that he should think in that way. However, this is not the hour at which to start on the general housing problems of the nation. It has always amazed me, as a layman in these matters, to think that quite recently the number of houses built for letting was no more than Nye Bevan built just after the war, with the shortage of timber being what it was then. With the housing shortage that everybody recognised, and having got the number of new houses up to 300,000 a year in 1951, how we have stuck at that ever since is something I have never understood. But there it is. That is our general housing problem. Once we have got to 300,000, there should be no difficulty in going to 350,000 in the next year, and to 400,000 afterwards. But in most of the years since we got up to 300,000 we have fallen back.
Housing is a problem. We should all wish, I am sure, to acknowledge our indebtedness to the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, of which, if I may say so, Lady Swanborough is such a distinguished Chairman, because housing was the subject of their first Report, and it contained recommendations in relation to hostels and repairs. It may be that the new development of industrial processes for building houses may assist us to find some solution.
Then there was a second Report from the Council, on education. I am sure that the Council were right in stressing the need for teaching English, because I do not see how one can teach immigrant children anything until they have been taught English and, so far as possible, properly. As we all know, immigrants can have some knowledge of English, yet their pronunciation may be so faulty that people cannot properly understand them. Education in itself throws up more problems.
170
There is an obvious need among immigrants for adult education, including that for women. This really means afternoon or evening classes, and it may be that we ought to be considering whether local wireless stations in certain districts could assist.
There are also the difficulties, which we are now finding in one or two schools, for example, in Birmingham, where a majority of the children are coloured. But the present difficulties are nothing to those that we are going to have in that field in the future, for obvious reasons. There is, I think, some educational dispute as to whether or not, where this sort of problem arises, it is better to send some of the coloured children to schools further away, so that they are not mixing with children in that neighbourhood, which is to their disadvantage, while, on the other hand, there is not too high a proportion of coloured children in the school.
A third Report concerns a matter which again will increase our difficulties and not simplify them. It is in relation to the field of employment, and the difficulties that may arise in placing the increasing numbers of coloured adolescent citizens.
Quite apart from formal education, I think that these people, when they arrive, need some instruction in the English way of life. The whole problem of integration or assimilation is really one of increasing understanding on both sides. It is an enormously difficult job. Much as I admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, who made what I thought was a sensible suggestion, that vouchers should specify the numbers of the family of the person who is being admitted so that we can see what liabilities we should acquire in the future—a suggestion which I am sure will be most carefully considered—I am not sure that I agree with his statement that there is really no colour problem; that it is simply a behaviour problem. I do not think the ordinary weekly wage-earner has the slightest idea that we have 400,000 aliens living here. I do not think they worry him. And I think the reason that they do not worry him is because he does not see them. He may hear men with a slightly foreign accent, but they dissolve into the crowd because they are white. The difficulty with

171
coloured people is that other people can and do notice them.
In this connection I think someone ought to pay tribute to the work of the National Advisory Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants and their advisory officer, Miss Peppard. No doubt there is something to be said for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that in the case of some of these communities, like the Sikhs, it would be a wise thing to employ those who are used to them and understand them. I will not trouble your Lordships with the details at this hour, but Miss Peppard and that Committee have already seen to it that there are a large number of both consultative committees and liaison officers, and at long last we are following some sort of plan.
One of the difficulties is that, just as until 1962 we had no real national plan about immigration, so we had no national plan as to how those who were here were to be integrated or assimilated into the population. The matter was just thrown on the desk of the local authorities, and it was left entirely to them. But I hope that the appointment of Mr. Foley to his important task will mean that he will be able to develop and carry further the valuable work which that Committee have done, and that there will be increased co-ordination.
My Lords, it may be that we need social science workers, working on the ground. There is here, I suggest, an enormous job in relation to human attitudes which can be done by volunteers. I suggest that there is too much tendency to-day to leave everything to the Government. There are many people who say, "I wish the Government would give me a lead as to something useful I can do". The teaching of English is not in itself a difficult thing, and it would be of real value if people who have spare time, and who live in a place where there is anything like a substantial coloured community, would get out on the ground and get to know these people, and help them to understand the English way of life. Even such a simple thing as helping to teach the English language, whether to adults or children, is valuable. After all, if it is to the advantage of immigrants that they should, so far as possible, live at peace with their hosts,
172
it is no less to our own advantage that they should do so.
It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, that many people honestly believe that there is something inherently inferior about those of another race. We do not know a great deal about how to stop racial intolerance. Miss Peppard has had perhaps more experience in talking to liaison officers and consultative committees than anybody else. I asked her, and she said, with some humility, that with all her experience she did not know the answers. But there is one thing which I think is known to everybody, including her; and that is that at almost any gathering which may be addressed on the subject, before you get far you are asked the question: "Do you want your daughter to marry a black man?"
Racial hatred is, I think, a terrible thing. My own bias about it perhaps arose from the fact that I was in Belsen concentration camp within a day or two of its being taken, and, for professional and for other reasons, I have had to become familiar with the details of what happened at Auschwitz. This is really the logical outcome of people being brought up to believe that members of a different race are not really human beings like themselves, but can be treated quite differently simply because they belong to a particular race. We have this problem with us. I feel it is the duty of all of us to do what we can to see that racial intolerance in this country is reduced to a minimum. The subject is so important that I am the more grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having raised it in your Lordships' House to-day.
9.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, we have had a long debate, and at this late hour I do not propose to say very much in reply to all that has been said. Subject, I must say, to two exceptions, we have had a debate of the sort I hoped we should have—thoughtful, not controversial, not Party political, and, I believe, constructive and useful. Out of many interesting speeches, I thought the speech of my noble friend Lord St. Helens stood out. For many years I sat with him in another place and, as he was a Whip, I had never heard him open his mouth publicly. What he said in private was another matter, and

173
the language of Whips in private can sometimes be somewhat forceful. But I cannot help thinking that in another place we suffered something of a loss by having him silenced by virtue of his office. Also, the right reverend Prelate made a thoroughly well-informed and most interesting speech. Then there was a speech by the noble Lord Lord Brown, and one by the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough.
But to me there were in the course of the debate one or two considerable surprises. The first came from the absent Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury. She criticised the terms of this Motion. She said it illustrated an attitude which was both negative and restrictive. That led to my reading the Motion again to see how that statement could possibly be justified. I do not see what is negative or restrictive in seeking
"To call attention to the problems of immigration and in particular to the steps now proposed for preventing the admission of persons not entitled to enter and settle in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers".
I am still at a loss, and if she were still here I should hope that she would enlighten me as to what in fact was so negative and so restrictive about that Motion. But I think she was slightly annoyed because she found herself in some difficulty in trying to deny that a Party point—and I do not object to people making Party points—had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, yesterday. But I have no sympathy with those who seek to deny that they have made a Party point when they obviously have. There is nothing to stop a Party point from being made in this House, and indeed we often make them ourselves. But I did express the hope in the course of this debate that we should not do so, and I made it clear that I was departing from that only to reply to the Party point which was made yesterday.
Frankly, and it may have been my fault, I was rather disappointed by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. First of all, he seemed to think that I had been suggesting that Commonwealth immigrants should be treated in the same way as aliens. When he comes to read my speech again he will see that I suggested nothing of the sort. Secondly, he seemed to think that I had suggested that, because the area of control should be enlarged, members of families should be separated
174
—husbands separated from their dependants, and so on. When he comes to consider my speech he will see again that I suggested nothing of the sort. What in fact the noble Lord did was to admit the case that I had made out, because he said quite emphatically that there was at the present time no method of enforcement of the conditions imposed on entrants.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me, I did not say anything of the kind. What his noble friend complained of was that I had not said what the method of enforcement was. But, of course, we have the police force and the other methods of enforcing the law when people break the conditions of entry.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If the noble Lord wants to pursue that, I would ask him to read the letter which the Home Secretary sent to Chief Constables, which really reveals that in fact there are no methods of tracing those who break their conditions and there is no method of finding out if they do. The noble Lord—and I took a note of what he said, but we can look at Hansard about it—then said this:
"Even if the vouchers were completely stopped, it is by no means certain that the inflow would be below the present level".
Nowhere in my speech had I suggested what that level should or should not be. A scheme as worked under the 1962 Act enabled that limit to be varied. What I was saying was that the area of control should be enlarged because of the contrast between the number of vouchers issued and the net total immigration figures. I will not pursue that point, but I would ask the noble Lord to look again at what I said because I think he will find that in the course of his speech he really conceded the main point I was making.
The only other speech to which I feel I must refer is the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I was sorry to see that he, also following the bad example of the absent Baroness, introduced a political angle to this debate. He started by making the assertion that England has become a multiracial society. I do not think that that statement is in fact true. The fact

175
that we have people of different races living in this island does not establish that we have become a multiracial society. A lot may depend on what you mean when you say "a multiracial society". But the Lord Chancellor did not stop there. He said it has become a multiracial society due to the last two Administrations. Why suggest something of that sort unless for the purpose of seeking to make some Party political capital? Of course, if it did become a multiracial society it was not due to the last two Administrations. No one ought to say that nothing at all on this subject was done owing to the inaction of the last two Administrations. Why bring that up at this late hour if it was not to score, or seek to score, a Party point?
My Lords, if we had wished to engage in recriminations I have plenty of ammunition. I well remember those debates that we had in 1962, and the opposition with which we were faced. I did not wish to go into recriminations again, and I am not going to go into them tonight, but it really is rather bad, when I started this debate with an appeal and a hope that it should be a dispassionate inquiry, to have these attempts made to gain Party political capital at this hour of the night. May I just complete what I am saying before I give way to the noble and learned Lord? He went on to say that the same questions about evasion might have been asked while we were in office and that this Government have frankly told us what steps are being taken. My Lords, if the same questions had been asked while we were in office, we would have answered them. But why is that mentioned, unless it is for the purpose of trying to score some Party political point?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Viscount cannot have been listening when I was speaking, because I expressly said that I was quite prepared to assume that any other Government would have done the same. I was therefore dealing with the matter not in the least as a Party
176
matter, but as a simple matter of fact: that we had had no immigration policy at all for about ten years and never woke up to what was happening till it was too late.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if that was really the noble Lord's point in making those observations, I do not understand why he could put so much emphasis as he did on two occasions on the acts or omissions of the last two Administrations.
But I do not want to end this debate on this discordant note. I regret the fact that this political angle has been introduced at all. It was not my hope or desire that it should be; I think I made that clear at the beginning. I hope that the Government, putting Party political points on one side, will give serious consideration to the need to legislate so as to provide some means of detecting breaches of those conditions which are being more frequently imposed—and I think that is right—and some means for tracing those who break them. That is really important, and I think, although it may be described by the absent Baroness as negative and restrictive, at the same time it is a proposal for law reform, and some people think that law reform is constructive.
May I conclude by thanking all noble Lords and noble Ladies for taking part in this debate? I myself think that it has been an extremely valuable one, and for me it has certainly been a most interesting one. It has been quite different in character, taking it as a whole, from the acrimonious debates that we used to have in another place in 1962. I hope that, although we may disagree on policy on what should be done to deal with these difficult problems, we shall go on making a serious approach and trying to keep Party warfare out of the matter. My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
CEREALS MARKETING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
Order for receiving the Report on Thursday the 18th instant discharged, and Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on that day.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past nine o'clock.